Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Bradford Corporation Bill (by Order), As amended, considered; Amendment made.

Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the Third time.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — TREATIES (WARLIKE OBLIGATIONS).

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there are any treaties now in force to which this country is a party which impose on this country in any eventualities the obligation to undertake warlike obligations; and, if so, whether he will furnish a list of such treaties?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Austen Chamberlain): I invite the hon. Member to refer to the answer given to the former Member for North Bristol by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, in reply to the same question on the 12th March, 1924. The situation is unchanged.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the statement made by the late Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs in April last year, in which he said that he was aware that attempts were being made to ship from European countries large consignments of arms, and that a British shipping company had been asked to transport them? Can he say if His Majesty's Government can assure the
House that they will take no military steps to enforce the repayment of any loans for such a purpose?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot connect that question in any way with the question on the Paper, which I have just answered.

Mr. JOHNSTON: The question on the Paper asks whether there are any treaties in force which impose on this country, in any eventuality, the obligation to undertake warlike obligations, and it is with reference to that statement that my supplementary question was put.

Mr. SPEAKER: I think the hon. Member's question contained a reference to a previous answer, and notice should, therefore, be given of it.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

BRITISH DIPLOMATIC REPRESENTATION.

Mr. BECKETT: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the reasons why the example of other countries is not followed and an Ambassador to the Soviet Union appointed by His Majesty's Government?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member is mistaken if he supposes that all other countries, or even all the great Powers, have acted alike in this matter. Some countries have appointed Ambassadors and some have no diplomatic relations with the Soviet Government. His Majesty's Government take the course which seems to them best suited to British interests.

Mr. BECKETT: How long do the Government intend to continue this attitude of undignified sulkiness towards the Soviet Government?

Mr. SPEAKER: Adjectives are not permissible in questions.

GEORGIA.

Mr. BRIANT: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the Government recognise the authority of Soviet Russia to extend to Georgia; and, if so, seeing that Russia, Great Britain and many other States recognised the independence of Georgia in 1920, what grounds are there for withdrawing such recognition?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Republic of Georgia is recognised to be a constituent part of the Trans-Caucasian Federative Republic which is itself a member of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Official recognition of a government which no longer exists de facto naturally lapses.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA.

CHINESE GOVERNMENT'S DEMANDS.

Mr. FOOT MITCHELL: 4.
asked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the lack of information from the Far East, he will state exactly what the 13 demands by the Chinese Government in connection with the shooting at Shanghai really are; and if any of them have been approved by the British Government?

Mr. TREVELYAN: 20.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can give the full text of the 13 demands made by the Chinese Government to the diplomatic body at Pekin?

Mr. A. CHAMBERLAIN: The 13 demands are as follow:

(1) Cancellation of state of emergency.
(2) Release of all Chinese arrested in connection with the incident and restoration to original state of all educational institutions in the international settlement sealed and occupied by the authorities.
(3) Punishment of offenders to be suspended pending investigations and thereafter to be seriously dealt with.
(4) Compensation for the damage sustained by the labourers, merchants and students in connection with this incident.
(5) Apology.
(6) Rendition of Mixed Court.
(7) All employés of foreigners, seamen and workers of mills or factories and others who turned out on strike in sympathy shall be re-instated and their wages during the period of the strike shall not be deducted.
(8) Better conditions for the labourers. Any labourer may work or not on his own accord and shall not be punishable for refusal to work.
2494
(9) Municipal franchise.

(a) The Chinese may participate in the municipal council and the ratepayers' meetings, the ratepayers' representation in the council shall be in proportion to the amount of the rate payable and paid to the municipal revenue, and the qualifications for franchise of the Chinese shall be similar to those of the foreigners.
(b) For the purpose of the franchise distinction shall be made as to the beneficial and trust or legal interests of property, with the beneficial interest the right of franchise shall accompany and in the case of the trust interest, such right shall be exercised by the beneficial owner thereof.
(10) Restraint to construct road beyond boundaries. The Shanghai Municipal Council shall not construct roads beyond the settlement boundaries. Those roads which are already so constructed shall be unconditionally handed over to the Chinese Government.
(11) Withdrawal of the resolutions concerning printed matter; increase of wharfage dues and licensing of exchanges.
(12) All Chinese residents of the settlement shall have liberty of speech, assembly and publication.
(13) Dismissal of the secretary of the municipal council.
Until they have been examined by the diplomatic body, I prefer to make no comments.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: What is being done with regard to demand No. 8? Is the right hon. Gentleman having special inquiries made?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think that is covered by a later question.

Mr. MACKINDER: 19.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government has received two Notes from the Chinese Government, the first relating to the Shanghai incidents and containing 13 demands, and the second dealing with the general relations between China and Great Britain, and urging the revision of the treaties concerning extra-terri-
toriality, concessions, and special privileges, on the grounds that they were out of date; whether he will immediately publish these Notes; and whether any reply has yet been sent?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and to the last part in the negative. The text of the 13 demands is given in my reply to a question to-day by the hon. Member for Saffron Walden, and summaries of the Notes will probably appear in the Press. I doubt whether it would be worth while to have them specially published as a Parliamentary Paper at this stage.

Mr. MACKINDER: In view of the fact of the great national interest taken in this matter, would it not be as well to know if we are to have an official Note published?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think probably the time to publish a Note will be when the correspondence is completed.

SHANGHAI DISTURBANCES (COMMISSION OF INQUIRY).

Mr. TREVELYAN: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs by whom the Commissioners were nominated to collaborate with the Chinese Commission in the inquiry into the Shanghai disturbance; and what are the names and nationality of the Commissioners?

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: 23.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any, and, if so, what Commission has been appointed to investigate the recent disturbances in Shanghai?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Commission was appointed by the Diplomatic Body at Peking, and consisted of representatives of the British, American, French, Japanese, Italian and Belgian Legations. The head of the Commission was Monsieur Tripier, Counsellor of the French Legation, and the British representative was Mr. Vereker, First Secretary of His Majesty's Legation at Peking. I have not yet been informed of the names of the other members of the Commission. The primary purpose of the Commission was to examine the situation and report to the Diplomatic Body, but they were also authorised to collaborate in any way
they could with the Chinese officials appointed by the Government at Peking to make a similar inquiry.

Mr. MACKINDER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that newspapers in this country are stating that Europeans have been killed in those recent disorders, whereas the only death was that of Mr. Mackenzie, which was outside of Shanghai, and will he take steps to contradict those statements?

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question on the Paper.

Mr. TREVELYAN: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there has yet been any Report from the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the Shanghai disturbances; and to whom the Report is being made in the first instance?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Commissioners have returned to Peking and reported to the Diplomatic Body, which is considering their Report.

EXTRA-TERRITORIAL TREATIES.

Mr. THURTLE: 17.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government will take the initiative in proposing immediately to the other Treaty Powers that a conference of all Powers concerned, including China, should be organised forthwith, such conference to discuss the question of extraterritoriality and the revision of the treaties by which the concessions and foreign settlements were obtained?

Mr. AMMON: 24.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government is prepared to intimate to the Chinese Government that they are willing to meet in conference at an early date for the purpose of discussing questions of extra-territoriality, concessions, and other special privileges held in China by Britain and British nationals?

Mr. B. SMITH: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government will forthwith call a conference of the Treaty Powers with a view to the liquidation of the present differences with the Chinese people on the basis of a revision of the treaties in so far as territorial concessions and extraterritorial privileges are concerned in a spirit of equality and reciprocity?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: His Majesty's Government are consulting with the other Governments concerned, with whom they intend to act in close collaboration, as to the reply to be returned to the request which the Chinese Government have made that the matters mentioned in the question should be considered. In the meantime, I can make no statement on the subject beyond saying that any discussion of these large issues is impossible until the Chinese Government have taken steps to put an end to the present anti-foreign agitations and have shown their ability to enforce law and order and respect for the treaty rights of the Powers.

Mr. MACKINDER: If it is true, as the right hon. Gentleman said in Debate, that there is no real Government with any real power to do these things in China, how could he expect them to be done?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not know really what the hon. Gentleman intends to suggest by that question. It is not my desire to interfere in Chinese domestic concerns. But for the purpose of negotiation it is necessary that the Chinese themselves should constitute some Government that can protect foreigners, keep law and order, and deal with negotiations.

Major CRAWFURD: When the right hon. Gentleman is in a position to give accurate information, may I ask whether he proposes to publish or circulate any statement in regard to the disturbances which have taken place recently?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think the House will desire from time to time to be given any information that can be given upon the situation, but I really cannot speak about any particular publication in circumstances which are still hypothetical.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Seeing it is the desire of the right hon. Gentleman that there should be a stable central Government in China with which he can deal, will he say what steps his Government are prepared to take to enforce the decision taken at the Washington Conference that China should be allowed to raise her revenue to 5 per cent. on the Customs as against the 2½ per cent. previously enjoyed?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As soon as this anti-foreign agitation ceases and as soon as foreign property and the life of nationals are safe, I hope that the Conference contemplated by Washington will take place. It cannot, however, take place in circumstances in which it might be exposed to anti-foreign demonstrations and conditions under which the life and property of the nationals of the Powers concerned are in danger.

Mr. JOHNSTON: 21.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the situation in China, he will submit the question of extra-territorial agreements in that country to the League of Nations under Article 19 of the Covenant?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The question of extra-territoriality was carefully investigated by the principal Powers concerned at the Washington Conference in 1922. It was agreed (China concurring) to appoint an international commission to inquire into the position and assist the Chinese Government to effect such reforms as would justify the relinquishment of extraterritorial rights. The meeting of this Commission has been thrice postponed, on the first occasion at the request of the Chinese Government, on the two latter occasions at the instance of the Powers on account of the Civil War and the chaotic conditions in China. But His Majesty's Government believe that this method of procedure, inasmuch as it has already been accepted by the Powers and by China, is a more suitable way of dealing with the question than by a reference to the League of Nations.

BRITISH POLICY.

Mr. W. BAKER: 22.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that international trading influences in China are demanding forcible representations and stern measures in regard to the situation in China; and whether the British Government will adopt every possible precaution to prevent active measures being taken for any purpose except the protection of British lives?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The policy of His Majesty's Government was stated by me in the Debate on the 18th of June. Nothing has occurred to change it since I spoke.

Oral Answers to Questions — DIPLOMATIC SERVICE (INDIANS).

Mr. THURTLE: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Indians are eligible for appointment as diplomatic representatives in any Asiatic country or elsewhere; and whether any Indian has been appointed to any such post?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Regulations prescribe that candidates for the Diplomatic Service must be natural-born British subjects, and born within the United Kingdom or in one of the self-governing Dominions of parents also born within those territories.

Mr. THURTLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman contemplating any change in those conditions?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRAQ BOUNDARY.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the present position with regard to the Iraq boundary; and when it is expected that this question will be settled?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The position has not altered since I replied to the somewhat similar question by the hon. and gallant Gentleman on the 27th May, but I anticipate that the question will be ready for settlement and will be settled at the September meeting of the Council of the League of Nations.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Commission's final Report will be in hand?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That I cannot say. I do not know, and I do not think it proper to press for a Report before the Commission is ready to present it, but it is anticipated by the Council that it will be presented in time for their consideration and for them to take a decision at the September meeting.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I was only asking for information. I was not making any hostile suggestion.

Oral Answers to Questions — EGYPTIAN TRIBUTE LOANS.

Sir FREDRIC WISE: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the amount to pay the coupons on the Egyptian tribute loans has now been paid?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I presume that my hon. Friend has in mind the judgment given in favour of the bondholders in the Egyptian Mixed Court of First Instance on the 15th June. So far as His Majesty's Government are aware, no payment has yet been made, nor is it known whether the Egyptian Government intend to file a notice of appeal, which they are entitled to do within 60 days of the service of the judgment on them.

Oral Answers to Questions — PORT WINE (ANGLO-PORTUGUESE COMMERCIAL TREATY).

Mr. BROCKLEBANK: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is intended, in view of the forthcoming expiration of the Anglo-Portuguese Commercial Treaty, to take steps in connection with any negotiations for its renewal, to secure that the Portuguese Government shall alter its arrangements for certifying wines which may be exported to this country under the name of port, so as to ensure a return to the general practice prior to the treaty of 1914, whereby ports exported from Portugal were mainly of a strength exceeding 30 degrees of proof spirit, with a view to the prevention of the present loss of British revenue due to the shipping of largely increasing quantities of wines from Portugal described as port at a. strength below 30 degrees and chargeable, therefore, with a wine duty in Great Britain of 2s. 6d. per gallon instead of 6s. per gallon?

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I have been asked to reply. The question of the proper strength of the wine which can legally be described as "Port" is at present under discussion with the Portuguese Government. In order to remove a misapprehension, I would explain that the Anglo-Portuguese Treaty of Commerce and Navigation is in any event binding on the parties until 23rd September, 1926, and only ceases to
operate after that date if either contracting party gives notice of its intention to terminate it.

Sir JAMES REMNANT: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether, in view of the early expiration of the treaty, steps can be taken either to continue it or to open negotiations for enlarging it, in view of the heavy duties imposed by the Portuguese Government on the imports from this country into Portugal of our manufactured articles?

Mr. SAMUEL: It is true that representations have been made to my Department about the Portuguese duties on our steel goods. If we reopen the question with regard to the treaty, I will bear in mind the suggestion of my hon. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH CONSUL, CHUBUT VALLEY, ARGENTINE.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has yet carried out the suggestion made by the British representative at Buenos Aires in February, 1923, to appoint a Consul for the Chubut Valley, Argentine; and, if not, will he give the matter immediate consideration?

Mr. SAMUEL: The appointment in question was deferred owing to the absence from the territory of Chubut of the gentleman to whom it was proposed to offer the appointment. His Majesty's Minister at Buenos Aires has been asked by telegraph whether the appointment can now be made.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

MALTA DOCKYAED (WAGES).

Mr. KELLY: 26.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty when the reply will be given to the wages petition of the men employed in His Majesty's Dockyard, Malta; and will he give a list of the weekly wage rate of men employed at Malta Dockyard as labourers, skilled labourers, and fitters?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Davidson): A petition concerning the wages of the local workmen at Malta is at present under consideration, and a reply will be given as soon as possible; the predominant
weekly rates of wages, inclusive of temporary increases, at present being paid to labourers, skilled labourers, and fitters in Malta Dockyard, are 25s., 28s., and 44s., respectively.

CHATHAM DOCKYARD (OVERTIME).

Mr. KELLY: 27.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether at Chatham Dockyard instructions have been given to the engineering manager that overtime must be worked to clear up arrears; and, if so, whether, in view of the large number of men unemployed, he will consider the advisability of taking on additional men instead of keeping the present staff on overtime?

Mr. DAVIDSON: The answer is in the negative.

YARDCRAFT SERVICE (WORKING WEEK).

Mr. KELLY: 28.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what is the normal working week of men engaged in the yardcraft service, and when such normal week was fixed in accordance with the award of the industrial court?

Mr. DAVIDSON: The conditions of service of the crews of the dockyard tugs and other vessels of the yardcraft service are similar to those of other seafaring men; there is no fixed number of hours of duty to make up a normal working week, and there is no award prescribing a working week for the employees in question.

COPPER-WIRE GAUZE (CONTRACT).

Mr. HANNON: 29.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Admiralty have recently placed abroad order for considerable quantities of copper-wire gauze and whether any condition was included in the contract with the supplier in regard to the wages to be paid by the firms manufacturing this material?

Mr. DAVIDSON: An order for copper-wire gauze of a value of about £300 was recently given to a British firm, who imported the material from the Continent. A substantial preference is given to British manufacturers, but this particular gauze could only have been made in this country at an extra cost of about 50 per cent. After every opportunity had been given to the British firms to supply at lower prices the order
was reluctantly placed for foreign-made gauze owing to the great difference in price. The remaining items of the contract were placed for British-made gauzes. The contract contained the usual fair-wages clause embodied in Government contracts, but this clause can only be enforced as regards labour employed in this country by the contractors.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it not a fact that the navy steams on oil imported from Persia?

Mr. DAVIDSON: To a certain extent, that is so.

SEA BOOTS.

Mr. BRIANT: 30.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty why the practice by which sea boots were served to sailors during the War is now discontinued?

Mr. DAVIDSON: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The issue has not been discontinued, and sea boots are carried in all ships.

HARD-LYING MONEY (SPRING MANŒUVRES).

Mr. R. YOUNG: 31.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to the hardships endured by officers and men serving in His Majesty's destroyers during the recent spring manœuvres; and whether, in relation to such conditions of service, he will recommend the payment of hard-lying money to those in that Service?

Mr. DAVIDSON: The answer to both parts of the question is in the negative. The Regulations regarding hard-lying money are considered adequate under existing conditions, and payment cannot be authorised to destroyers during peace exercises.

DESTROYERS (ARTIFICERS' MESSES).

Mr. ROBERT YOUNG: 32.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the matter raised on the 8th of April, 1925, has been considered regarding the unsatisfactory messes allotted in His Majesty's destroyers to chief and engine-room artificers; and whether, seeing the structural alterations made to make room for special fittings have deprived the men of sleeping accommodation and necessary privacy, other suitable messes will be provided for them?

Mr. DAVIDSON: These ratings are as well off for messing and sleeping space as ratings of other branches, and I regret that no other permanent accommodation is available. I may add the accommodation in modern destroyers is much superior to that in destroyers and torpedo-boats of earlier types.

Mr. YOUNG: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that he promised to look into the matter of spare cabins? Has he done so?

Mr. DAVIDSON: Yes, I did look into that matter, but it has been found that the cabins are quite unsuitable for messes.

POLITICAL MEETINGS.

Mr. SNELL: 33.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware that during an open-air meeting held at Deal on Saturday, 20th June, and addressed by a Labour party speaker, members of the Royal Marines who were in the audience were removed by the Marine Military Police; if the marines are forbidder to listen to political speeches; if so, does the prohibition extend to officers as well as privates and non-commissioned officers and to the meetings of all political parties; and whether, seeing that Service men are now entitled to vote, they will in future be afforded the same facilities as members of the general public to inform themselves as to the issues on which they may be called upon to vote?

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Bridgeman): I am informed that no Royal Marines were removed by the Royal Marine Military Police from any Labour open-air meeting at Deal on 21st June. I see by to-day's Order Paper that the date there is 20th June, although it was the 21st in the Blue Papers. The hon. Gentleman must take my answer as applying to the 21st. As regards the other points raised, the attendance of officers and men at political meetings and demonstrations is governed by paragraph 507, King's Regulations for the Army and Army Reserve, of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy.

Mr. SNELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries as to Saturday, 20th?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Certainly. I only wanted to prevent there being any confusion about my answer, because I think the hon. Gentleman will agree that the 21st was the date in the Blue Papers.

Mr. SNELL: Does the right hon. Gentleman wish me to put another question?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: No, Sir, I will inquire.

Colonel DAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the speaker was a man who had served in the Royal Marines originally, and that he and his two sons served in the late War?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: If so, I am rather sorry to hear it.

HON. MEMBERS: Why?

Mr. RILEY: Is it to be implied from the answer of the right hon. Gentleman that Marines are not to attend these meetings?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: No, Sir. The answer refers to the King's Regulations, and what is stated there.

Captain BENN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman what he meant by saying that he is sorry to hear of an ex-service man belonging to one or other of the political parties?

Mr. SPEAKER: Who the speaker was really does not affect the present matter. The first question on the point was irregular, and I deprecate very much going into personalities. It is a matter of principle, and not of personalities.

OFFICERS' MARRIAGE ALLOWANCE.

Major HORE-BELISHA: 34.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty why the announcement upon the question of marriage allowance, the money for which has already been granted by the House of Commons, is still delayed?

Sir CHARLES CAYZER: 25.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the co-ordinating Committee of the Cabinet has now reached any decision regarding the Admiralty proposals in respect of marriage allowances to naval officers; and, if so, what that decision is?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I will, with the hon. Members' permission, answer these questions together. No decision has yet been reached on this subject.

Major HORE-BELISHA: Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether this matter is daily under discussion and
deliberation, and, if so, when he expects that an announcement will be made, in view of the interest that is felt?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I cannot say more. All I can say is, that I am doing nothing to prevent its being decided, and we shall only be too glad when it is.

Major HORE-BELISHA: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to answer the question on the Order Paper, as to why there is this delay?

HON. MEMBERS: Answer!

RESERVISTS (TRAINING).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 35.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any additional vessels will be commissioned or completed with full crews for the training of Reservists' during the present year; and, if so, which vessels will be so used?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The answer is in the negative.

SICK-BERTH RATINGS (MASSEURS).

Major Sir BERTRAM FALLE: 36.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what is the position of a temporary masseuse in regard to charge and supervision of chief petty officers, petty officers, and other ratings of the sick-berth branch employed as qualified masseurs; whether the head and other nursing sisters in naval hospitals have authority over sick-berth ratings under the provisions of the Naval Discipline Act; and whether he will take steps to prevent any ratings of the sick-berth branch from being placed in a false position by reason of females in naval hospitals not understanding their position?

Mr. DAVIDSON: Temporary masseuses have no charge or supervision of ratings of the sick-berth branch qualified as masseurs. Head and other nursing sisters have no authority, under the Naval Discipline Act, over naval ratings; but it is competent for the medical officer of a hospital to place a massage sister in charge of cases, just as could be done with a male civilian specialist, and to direct the sick-berth staff to follow her directions while in charge of such cases. The Admiralty is not aware of dissatisfaction with the existing arrangements in this matter.

Sir B. FALLE: Can the hon. Gentleman say under what Regulation this is done?

Mr. DAVIDSON: It is not a Regulation, it is a matter of expediency.

Major HORE-BELISHA: Can the hon. Gentleman say if there is any truth in the last part of the question, that the ratings are in a false position by reason of these females?

Mr. DAVIDSON: No truth whatever.

SHIPBUILDING (CABINET COMMITTEE REPORT).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 45.
asked the Prime Minister when the Report of the Cabinet Committee on Naval Shipbuilding will be ready; and when an announcement as to the Government's decision will be made to the House?

Mr. A. CHAMBERLAIN: I can add nothing to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Bradford East on the 17th June.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask whether it is expected that this Report will be ready by the time the House rises in August, and will he undertake that the Estimates will be presented before we rise?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think it would be premature to have any presumption about the time this House will rise.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: As the Prime Minister has undertaken that the Supplementary Estimates required would be presented before we rise, may I ask if that can possibly be carried out?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not familiar with the pledge which the Prime Minister gave, and I think I had better leave it as it stands. I have no reason to doubt that any statement which the Prime Minister made holds good for all time, or at any rate for as long a time as he himself may hold good for.

Major HORE-BELISHA: Does the right hon. Gentleman, speaking on behalf of the Prime Minister, think it is fair to treat so cynically the emphatic pledge which was given by the Prime Minister on this subject? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"]

Oral Answers to Questions — MOROCCO.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government have been invited to join Spain and France in blockading the Riff; whether it is proposing to do so; and under what conditions?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It is not proposed by the French and Spanish Governments to declare a blockade, but merely to concert in taking measures for the policing of certain of their territorial waters and of the waters of the Tangier zone. His Majesty's Government have received in invitation from the Spanish Government to join in these measures, and I would ask the hon. Gentleman to defer any further questions while consideration is being given to the matter.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Are we to understand from the right hon. Gentleman that the Government have taken no steps in regard to the request from these foreign nations?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The only request I have yet received has been from the Spanish Government. We have taken no steps except to assure the Spanish Government that we shall at once consider any proposals they have to make.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Government will be able to announce their decision as regards the blockade by sea and the passage of troops through the Tangier zone?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot say when I shall be able to announce the decision, but I shall be happy to give the House information as soon as the decision has been arrived at. Let me repeat that there is no question of blockade.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Will the right hon. Gentleman say, then, where is the necessity for policing the territorial waters?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Well, Sir, the Tangier Convention provides for the neutrality of the territorial waters of Tangier, and that they should not be used for supplies to the Riffian troops.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: With regard to the blockade, is it not a
fact that there should be, under international law, a blockade declared before our ships are stopped and seized as prizes? What is the position in regard to that?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: There is, I repeat, no question of a blockade. There is the question of the policing or the supervising of contraband traffic within territorial waters, which is a wholly different thing—as I need not point out to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, who is a naval officer.

Captain BENN: Does that territorial waters neutrality apply to the use of the Tangier front by the Spanish forces?

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask one further question? Does what has been said mean that the right hon. Gentleman has protested against any of our vessels being stopped and searched outside the three miles limit?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir. There can be no right of search on the high seas except in the case of a regular blockade, and under the conditions of strict international law. That is not suggested by the Powers concerned. What is under discussion is the supervision of the territorial waters. We have under the Tangier Convention certain obligations in respect to the territorial water? in the Tangier zone.

Oral Answers to Questions — POPLAR (SOVIET OFFICIALS' VISIT).

Mr. DIXEY: 18.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has now investigated the report of the presence of members or officials of the Soviet Legation or other Soviet officials at Poplar at a function when Soviet officials expressed a desire to see a republic in this country at an early date; if so, whether officials of the Russian Legation or other Soviet officials are to be allowed to interfere in politics in this country; and what action is proposed to be taken?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I understand from my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that this was a private meeting about which the police had no
information. In these circumstances I cannot take any action.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN MUSICIANS (LANDING PERMITS).

Colonel DAY: 37.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of alien musicians to whom permits have been granted to land in Great Britain for the 12 months ending 31st May, 1925; if applications have been received from any further alien musicians to land in Great Britain in June, July, August and September; and, if so, will he state the number of applications so received and for what period they are required and will be granted?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland): During the 12 months ended 31st May, 1925, permits under Article 1 (3) (b) of the Aliens Order, 1920, were granted in respect of 131 musicians. This figure does not include vocalists, but includes all players of musical instruments, whether stage performers, vaudeville artists, concert artists or members of bands or orchestras. The permission given in each case was limited as to time, the periods varying from one week to six months. Applications have been received for permission to engage 32 alien musicians for periods during June, July, August and September. Of these 10 have been granted for six weeks and one for one week, 11 will shortly be granted for eight weeks and 10 have been refused.

Colonel DAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the bringing in of these foreign bands is creating an enormous amount of unemployment among our own bands?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: This policy has often been considered, and an attempt has been made to harmonise it with the existing position of affairs by making arrangements so that bands should consist of equal numbers of persons brought in and otherwise, so as to make the best of both worlds—to serve the interests of music and to give employment.

Colonel DAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the British bands that he speaks of which are supposed to be given employment when these permits are
granted to foreign bands generally consist of a majority of aliens?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: No, Sir.

Mr. HARRIS: Are not we to suppose that people want to listen to this music —that if they did not these bands would have to go back, because people would not pay to hear them?

Mr. DIXEY: Are there not fewer of these bands coming in now than came in under the late Government?

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

COAL INDUSTRY.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 38.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of coal miners on the books of the colliery companies and the number registered as unemployed on the latest date for which both figures are available, and the corresponding figures for the same date of last year?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: According to the information of the Mines Department, the number of wage-earners on the colliery books on 23rd May, 1925, was 1,095,744 as compared with 1,191,816 on 24th May, 1924. The number of persons insured under the Unemployment Insurance Acts in Great Britain who were recorded at Employment Exchanges as unemployed on 25th May, 1925, was 199,154, as compared with 38,052 on 26th May, 1924. Statistics for a later date are not yet available.
As I explained in my reply to my hon. Friend's question on 13th May last, the two sets of figures are not mutually exclusive, and the total number of workers in the coal mining industry cannot be obtained by adding the number on the colliery books to the number recorded as unemployed.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Am I entitled to assume that some of the men are returned as both employed and unemployed on the same date?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: No, sir. The hon. Member may assume that some men are returned as being on the colliery books and as unemployed on the same date.

Mr. RICHARDSON: May I ask whether the figures the right hon. Gentleman has given include the number of men who are out of work because of the owners trying to break through agreements and throw the men idle?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I could not give any answer to that question. It raises a presumption. This is the total number of men out of work, so far as they are recorded as unemployed from any cause.

Mr. RICHARDSON: Would the right hon. Gentleman—

Mr. SPEAKER: Will the hon. Member put his question down? Then he will get an answer.

BENEFIT.

Mr. THURTLE: 40.
asked the Minister of Labour if the fact that an unskilled labourer has been employed for 26 weeks on relief work would be taken into account by a local employment committee in deciding whether or not such a man had been employed for a reasonable period during the two years of which the 26 weeks formed part?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The performance of relief work is not regarded as having any bearing on the satisfaction of the conditions for the grant of extended benefit, and the employment on relief work in the case referred to by the hon. Member should not be taken into account by the local employment committee.

Mr. THURTLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this relief work involves unskilled labour, and it will have to be done some time or other; and does he not think this should be taken into account in considering whether a man has been employed for a reasonable period during the last two years?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The whole principle on which local employment committees are supposed to judge is whether the amount the man has done is reasonable in view of all of the circumstances and whether he is genuinely seeking work. That is a matter of judgment as regards what he would have done under ordinary conditions, and therefore the performance of relief work cannot be taken as giving any indication one way or
the other. He might quite well be regarded as satisfying the conditions if he had done no other work at all besides relief work. Of course it depends upon the judgment in regard to individual cases.

Mr. LANSBURY: Has the right hon. Gentleman taken into account that a man ordered by the board of guardians or the borough council to go on to relief work, if he left that work for any reason, his relief would immediately stop and that therefore, during 26 weeks he is really prohibited from looking for other work, and does he not think that that should be taken into consideration?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I have no doubt at all, but I speak subject to verification which I prefer to do instead of misleading the hon. Member. The fact that a man is not able during a certain period of time to look for work is no doubt a factor in the situation that the committee would have in mind.

Mr. STEPHEN: 58.
asked the Minister of Labour how many claims for unemployment benefit have been rejected during the months of March, April, and May, respectively, of this year, and the corresponding figures for last year?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The numbers of applications for extended benefit which were rejected by local employment committees in Great Britain in the months ended 13th April, 11th May and 8th June, 1925, were respectively 33,039, 27,757 and 27,249, as compared with 19,690, 15,083, and 13,926 in the corresponding periods in 1924.

Mr. STEPHEN: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any reason for the increase in the number of rejections this year as compared with last year?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Certainly. The increase in the number of rejections was the result of last year's Act, because in the months that followed that Act the number of rejections was pretty much the same per month as at present.

UNINSURED PERSONS.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 41.
asked the Minister of Labour how many uninsured persons were registered as unemployed on
the latest date for which figures are available?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The number of uninsured persons on the registers of the Employment Exchanges on 22nd June is estimated at 47,000.

WORK PROVIDED.

Mr. CECIL WILSON: 42.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of applications by employers for workpeople, and the number of vacancies filled by the Employment Exchanges during the years 1921, 1922, 1923, and 1924?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: As the reply includes a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following are the figures:


Year
Vacancies notified by Employers.
Vacancies filled by Employment Exchanges.


1921
986,266
807,328


1922
839,633
697,036


1923
1,056,970
893,713


1924
1,345,394
1,143,742


These figures exclude vacancies of a casual nature—such as dock labourers and coal porters—which amounted to between 20 and 30 thousand in each of the years in question.

Mr. WILSON: 43.
further asked the Minister of Labour the average number of persons receiving unemployment benefit during the years 1921, 1922, 1923 and 1924; and what percentage of these persons were, in each year, convicted of fraud in connection with benefit?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The following is the answer:

The weekly average number of claims current in Great Britain in the years mentioned were:


1921
1,595,776


1922
1,485,540


1923
1,198,899


1924
1,058,406

As the hon. Member will appreciate, the number of convictions for fraud over a whole year is not strictly comparable with the figure for claimants to benefit taken as an average over the year, but subject to this caution, the percentages for which he asks are approximately 005 in 1921, 0.1 in 1922, and 0.2 in 1923 and 1924.

HOTEL AND CLUB SERVICES.

Sir WALTER de FRECE: 44.
asked the Minister of Labour if, in view of the official figures that there were on 25th May last 29,244 unemployed in hotel, boarding houses, and club services, he will state exactly what kind of work these persons normally do; and why, in view of the shortage of workers of this nature, there are so many unemployed?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am sending my hon. Friend a list of the occupations in this group, from which he will see that it covers a considerable variety of employments, in many of which, so far as I am aware, there is not a shortage of workers.

COUNTY OF LONDON.

Mr. HANNON: 48.
asked the Minister of Labour the total number of unemployed registered for the year ending 31st March, 1925, at Employment Exchanges in the County of London and the approximate number of men, women, and young persons for whom employment was found through these exchanges during that period?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: It is not possible to say how many individuals were, at one time or another, on the registers of Employment Exchanges in the course of a year, but the average number of persons who were on the registers in the County of London at any one time in the 12 months ended March, 1925, was 171,590 (men, 129,369; women, 32,337, and juveniles, 9,884). The number of vacancies filled in the 12 months ended 6th April, 1925, was 240,387 (men, 97,411; women, 60,795, and juveniles, 82,181).

Mr. HANNON: 49.
asked the Minister of Labour if he will state the number of Employment Exchanges in the County of London; the total staff employed therein; the proportion of ex-service men employed; and the estimated annual
cost of these exchanges, including cost of premises and other charges not borne on the Ministry of Labour Vote?

Sir A. STEEL MAITLAND: There are 23 Employment Exchanges in the County of London. On the 25th June, 1925, 963 persons were employed. Eighty-one per cent. of the male staff are ex-service men. The annual cost falling on the Votes for these exchanges is estimated at £263,500. It is not practicable to give an exact estimate of the cost of premises and other charges not borne on the Ministry's Vote, but it amounts to, approximately, £92,000. Almost the whole of the cost of these exchanges is attributable to administration of unemployment insurance, and is recovered from the Unemployment Fund.

Mr. HARRIS: Is it not a fact that the men employed in these exchanges are not sufficient to help the men to find work, because all their time is occupied disbursing insurance money?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: That is not the case. There are quite a number who are occupied at the present moment in trying to find work for the unemployed, and an immense amount of work is being done by them in actually placing persons in employment.

Sir F. WISE: May I ask whether the capital cost is recovered from the Unemployment Insurance Fund?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put that question down on the Order Paper?

DEPENDANTS' BENEFIT (OLD AGE PENSIONERS).

Mr. JOHNSTON: 56.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he has issued a Circular to Employment Exchange managers ordering that no payment of dependants' benefit be paid in respect of any dependant in receipt of an old age pension; and whether, in view of the declared policy of the Government to remove restrictions and penalties upon old age pensions, he will have Circular 82/15 withdrawn?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Presumably, the hon. Member refers to paragraph 128 of Memorandum L.E.C. 82/15. I consider that any other procedure would be in breach of Sub-
section (1) of Section 1 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1922, and I cannot therefore withdraw the Circular.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPIRE SETTLEMENT.

Mr. DIXEY: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the payment of a grant to any Dominion Government for any unemployed man willing to emigrate for whom they will guarantee to find work overseas?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): The Empire Settlement Act, 1922, empowers His Majesty's Government to co-operate financially with any Dominion Government in agreed schemes of migration and settlement. Such schemes are already in operation in Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Persons are only assisted under these schemes provided that they are likely to make suitable settlers and that employment is available for them. It would be undesirable that the Act should be regarded as a means of directly relieving abnormal unemployment in this country. Its object is to distribute our population to the best advantage of the Empire as a whole, and thus to promote its development, trade and security.

Mr. PALING: Is it not a fact that more applications from people in this country who wish to emigrate under this scheme have been received than the scheme actually provides for?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Yes, at the present moment there are actually more people who are anxious to go to the Dominions than we can arrange the finance and reception for overseas.

Captain BRASS: Are any new schemes for encouraging people to emigrate being considered at the present time?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Yes, there are some being considered at the present moment.

Brigadier-General Sir H. CROFT: With regard to the existing scheme, is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that there are agencies in the Dominions trying to find opportunities for work for this particular class?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Yes, there are a good many organisations actively working in the Dominions to this end.

Mr. DIXEY: Could the Government not provide more money for these schemes?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The amount of the money is limited by the Vote of this House, but we did not spend either last year or the preceding year the amount that has been voted.

Oral Answers to Questions — INTERNATIONAL LABOUR OFFICE.

Colonel WOODCOCK: 50.
asked the Minister of Labour whether, having regard to the difficulty of obtaining information about the International Labour Organisation and the prohibitive cost of their publications, to which the attention of the House was called by the right hon. Member for the Oswestry Division of Shropshire on the 16th July last, he will arrange for all the periodical and other publications of the International Labour Office to be put in the Library of this House?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I understand that arrangements were made last April for the regular supply to the Library of this House of all the publications of the International Labour Office, and that all publications issued since the 1st January have already been placed in the Library.

Colonel WOODCOCK: Is it not the case that, if one wishes to get the whole of the publications of the International Labour Office, one has to subscribe £8 per annum, and would not the procedure suggested give everybody the opportunity of getting the whole of the information?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: As I have said, the information is at present placed in the Library, and anyone, like the hon. and gallant Member, who is interested, will doubtless be able to see the whole of the documents.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Has the right hon. Gentleman yet considered the suggestion, in view of the growing importance of the work of the International Labour Office, that copies of the daily records of the International Labour Conference should be placed in the Library of the House of Commons?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I will certainly consider that. The point was raised, but I am not quite certain about the answer as yet.

Oral Answers to Questions — NIGHT BAKING CONVENTION.

Colonel WOODCOCK: 51.
asked the Minister of Labour whether the policy of the British Government delegates at the recent International Labour Conference in regard to the proposed draft convention as to night-work in bakeries was that of the British Government delegates at the 1924 Conference, as stated in the White Paper containing the Report of the late Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, or that advocated by the resolution in support of that convention recently issued over the signatures of the late Prime Minister and the late Home Secretary on behalf of the Parliamentary Labour party and the National Executive of the Labour party?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The British Government delegates to the recent International Labour Conference acted in accordance with the policy of the present Government, which I stated on the 13th May, in reply to a question asked by the Noble Lord the Member for South Nottingham (Lord H. Cavendish-Bentinck). I am sending my hon. and gallant Friend a copy of this reply.

Mr. PALING: Is it not the fact that the opinions expressed by the workers' representatives were in contradiction to those of the Government?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I never like to make a statement without making sure of the facts, but if the hon. Member will put down a question I will find out.

Colonel WOODCOCK: 52.
asked the Minister of Labour whether His Majesty's Government propose to take any step to refer to the Permanent Court of International Justice the question whether the draft convention in regard to night work in bakeries proposed by the recent International Labour Conference, which relates to an industry which is not the subject of international industrial competition and which prohibits nightwork by master bakers as well as by persons employed, is consistent with the purpose of Part XIII of the Versailles Treaty of
Peace, and also the question of the competence of the Conference to pass such a draft convention?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: This Convention, as finally presented to the recent International Labour Conference, was not acceptable to His Majesty's Government, and their representatives voted against it. It is not the intention of the Government to take any further steps with regard to the Convention in the direction indicated by my hon. and gallant Friend.

Mr. TREVELYAN: Was the British Government the only Government that voted against the Convention?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I cannot answer that question off-hand.

Colonel WOODCOCK: Were the British Government carrying out Clause 13, which is inconsistent with protecting only employés?

Oral Answers to Questions — RAILWAY MATERIAL, AFRICA.

Mr. SANDEMAN: 53.
asked the Minister of Labour what steps are being taken, with the view of relieving unemployment, to secure the orders for railway material, and to expedite the placing of orders for the same, necessary in Africa for the opening up of the cotton fields?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I have been asked to answer this question. In Nigeria all material, rolling stock, etc., required for the railways under construction have been ordered, and in the Tanganyika Territory all material, for which provision has been made in the Estimates, has been, or is being, ordered. For the extension of the Uganda railway system into Uganda (for which provision is made under the assisted loan voted by Parliament in 1924), 150 miles of track have been ordered and are being shipped out in instalments of 1,600 tons a month. Much bridgework has been ordered and is being expedited, but it is probable that, pending the fixing of all the river crossings, the requisitions for bridgework are not yet complete. All the above material is British-made.

Oral Answers to Questions — COST-OF-LIVING INDEX FIGURES.

Captain BENN: 54.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he has yet instituted an inquiry into the cost-of-living index figures?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the replies (copies of which I am sending to him) given on 12th February and 4th March to questions on this subject by the hon. Members for the Plaistow and Reading Divisions, respectively.

Oral Answers to Questions — GROCERY TRADE (WAGES AND CONDITIONS).

Mr. R. DAVIES: 55.
asked the Minister of Labour what progress has been made with the inquiry into wages and conditions in the grocery trade; when he expects the inquiry to be completed; and how soon publication of the results of this inquiry may be expected?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I anticipate that the Report of the Inquiry mentioned in the question will be in my hands within the next two months. I hope, therefore, to be in a position to make public the broad results in the early autumn.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Will the inquiry be confined to ordinary small employers in the grocery trade, or have any communications been sent to cooperative societies?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I think all parts of the grocery trade are being communicated with, but if the hon. Member will put a question down as to that, I will make inquiries and let him know.

Oral Answers to Questions — SUGAR-BEET FACTORIES (FOREIGN MACHINERY).

Mr. STEPHEN: 57.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of engineers experienced in making machinery for use in sugar beet factories who are unemployed in this country at the present time?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I regret that the information required is not available.

Mr. STEPHEN: Is the Minister aware that a great deal of this kind of
machinery has been imported into this country, and that there is a large number of engineers in this country who are unemployed?

Captain BRASS: Is it not the case that the large amount of unemployment in the engineering industry is due to the artificial stimulation of that particular industry in other countries during the War?

Mr. BUCHANAN: In view of the Prime Minister's statement the other day, that one of the solutions of the unemployment problem was the buying of British goods by the people of this country, will the right hon. Gentleman state if it is not a fact that the Government granted a subsidy to the sugar beet industry, and then imported from abroad machinery that could have been made here?

Mr. SPEAKER: I think that that lies in the Department of the Minister of Agriculture.

Mr. BUCHANAN: My point is this, that this sugar beet subsidy was granted for the purpose of helping to solve the problem of unemployment, and, if a Department goes abroad, it immediately affects the figures of the Ministry of Labour and unemployment insurance, and, surely, the Minister of Labour has some ground for intervening on a matter which affects employment in that way?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am perfectly ready to answer the hon. Member's question. This point has been explained again and again. All that happens in a. case like this is that there are certain specified forms of particular kinds of machinery which, in the circumstances, it is better to import—not the general run. I can assure the hon. Member that, if he will take the line of supporting the purchase of British goods, he will be doing good work.

Mr. MAXTON: What is the insuperable difficulty in the way of the Minister of Labour informing the House as to the number of engineers normally engaged in this particular branch of the industry, which is carried on by only two or three firms in well-known areas? What is the insuperable difficulty in his Department finding how many of these men are presently unemployed?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: It is perfectly impossible to isolate a particular kind of machinery and say that, because of a particular order, the result is precisely so much. The hon. Member will find that that is the case as soon as he comes to deal with statistics, if he wants anything that is absolutely fair and accurate. It is impossible to do it in a case of this kind.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

BUILDING LABOUR.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: 61.
asked the Minister of Health what progress has been made with the schemes initiated by his predecessor in office for the augmentation of labour in the building trades by means of the committees set up nationally and locally; and is he satisfied with the rate of increase in the supply of building labour?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): The Building Industry Committee have set up local committees in most of the building centres of the country, and arrangements have been made for further committees to be set up as required. The Committee are not yet in a position to furnish statistics as to the number of apprentices which have been engaged, but no obstacles have been reported as regards the working of the scheme in connection with local authorities' contracts for house building.

Mr. THOMSON: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied with the progress that is being made, and can he do anything more to expedite it?

Sir K. WOOD: I do not think that anyone can say they are fully satisfied with anything, but progress is being made, and we are helping as much as we can.

Mr. HARRIS: Can the hon. Gentleman give any results for London?

Sir K. WOOD: I should like notice of that question.

STEEL HOUSES (DEVONPORT DOCKYARD).

Major HORE-BELISHA: 63.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has examined the possibilities of constructing steel houses in Devonport Dockyard,
in view of the fact that, if this course could be adopted, not only would the housing shortage in that town be relieved but it would also mean the absorption into employment of numbers of men who have no relief work in the district to go to; and whether he will examine this question in all its bearings?

Sir K. WOOD: My right hon. Friend has already invited the Plymouth Corporation to undertake the erection of steel houses for demonstration purposes, and understands that they are arranging to do so. My right hon. Friend has no doubt that they will consider the desirability of arranging for the erection of further steel houses in the light of the experiment.

Major HORE-BELISHA: Will the hon. Gentleman indicate to the Plymouth Town Council that this dockyard is available, and that there is plenty of opportunity for building these steel houses?

Sir K. WOOD: I am assuming that the Plymouth Corporation are fully aware of the facts in their own borough.

Mr. PALING: Is the Minister satisfied that these houses have successfully passed the demonstration stage and are to be built because they have been successful?

Sir K. WOOD: No, we are about to erect the houses for purposes of demonstration and to enable the people to judge for themselves.

TOWN PLANNING.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 64.
asked the Minister of Health whether his Department is following the efforts being made by the United States of America in the direction of town and region planning; and whether any official reports upon American progress have been received?

Sir K. WOOD: My right hon. Friend's Department keeps in close touch with these developments and frequent reports are received.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Could the information received by the hon. Gentleman's Department be placed before the House?

Sir K. WOOD: I will consider that.

Oral Answers to Questions — CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS BILL.

Mr. T. THOMSON: 62.
asked the Minister of Health the approximate number of persons who, on account of their not being insured under the National Health Insurance Acts, will be excluded from all benefits under the proposed Pensions Bill, and the proportion which will be wage earners?

Sir K. WOOD: So far as the first part of this question is concerned, I would refer the hon. Member to Tables F and G on pages 41 and 42 of the Government Actuary's Report on the Bill. These tables show in some detail the total population of each sex and the corresponding insured population. In regard to the second part of the question, the compulsory provisions of the Bill apply to practically all wage earners who are either engaged in manual labour or are employed at rates of remuneration not exceeding £250 a year, and provision is being made for the continuance, on a voluntary basis, of the insurance of wage earners who cease, or have already ceased, to be included in these categories.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA (SECRETARY OF STATE'S MEMORANDUM).

Mr. RENNIE SMITH: 65.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the final memorandum of the Secretary of State dealing with the question of the government and self-government of India will be published as a White Paper?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply to a similar question given to the hon. Member for Shoreditch last Monday.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRON AND STEEL TRADE.

Mr. DIXEY: 67.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what has been the result of the application of the iron and steel trade to the Safeguarding of Industries Committee for protection?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Burton Chadwick): I would refer my hon. Friend to the statement made in the Debate on Monday by the Minister of Labour.

Mr. DIXEY: May we take it that there is no possibility of any form of protection being given to the trade?

Sir B. CHADWICK: That will be decided by the inquiry.

Captain BENN: Can the hon. Gentleman give us the terms of reference of this inquiry?

Sir B. CHADWICK: No.

Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: When is this new inquiry going to set to work? Is it being set up immediately?

Sir B. CHADWICK: I understand it has been set up.

Mr. DIXEY: Shall we have an opportunity of discussing its decision?

Oral Answers to Questions — ENEMY ACTION CLAIMS.

Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKE: 66.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the fact that out of £5,000,000 of German reparations earmarked for British seamen £500,000 remains unexpended, and that, in addition, there is a residue of the additional £300,000 allocated for belated claims, and what steps he proposes to take in order to satisfy the claims of those merchant seamen who have not yet received the money to which they are entitled?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Guinness): I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to a question by the hon. Member for the Edge Hill Division on the 23rd June. In reply to the last part of the question the payment of amounts awarded out of the Votes of £5,000,000 and £300,000 to those claimants who have not already been paid is being completed as rapidly as possible.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a number of seamen consider their claims have not been met, and that they have not received the monies to which they are entitled?

Mr. GUINNESS: I understand Lord Sumner's Committee went into all these claims and made assessments, but we cannot tell exactly how the payments
will pan out until the process is completed.

Sir F. WISE: How much of the £300,000 has been contributed?

Mr. GUINNESS: I must have notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

SUGAR-BEET INDUSTRY.

Mr. STEPHEN: 68.
asked the Minister of Agriculture how many directors of the various sugar-beet companies who have obtained the subsidy under the Sugar Beet Act are of British nationality and how many of foreign nationality?

Major Sir HARRY BARNSTON (Comptroller of the Household): I have been asked to reply. Of the sugar-beet factory companies that have obtained the subsidy, 15 directors are of British and two of foreign nationality.

Mr. STEPHEN: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why it is necessary for foreign capitalists to receive a subsidy from the British Government?

Sir H. BARNSTON: I am afraid I cannot.

Colonel DAY: Can the hon. Gentleman state the amount?

CEREALS AND POTATOES.

Mr. GEORGE HARVEY: 69.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if the acreage

under cereals and potatoes in the country this year exceed that of last year; and what is the comparable position?

Sir H. BARNSTON: My right hon. Friend is afraid that, until the returns of the acreage in this country of the various crops as on 4th June have been tabulated, he is not in a position to give the information for which my hon. Friend asks.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURAL ESTATES.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 71.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer approximately how many estates there are in this country valued at £12,500, or over, wholly or mainly invested in agricultural land and property?

Mr. GUINNESS: I regret that this information is not available.

Oral Answers to Questions — NEW MEMBER SWORN.

WILLIAM MARTIN WIGGINS, esquire, for Borough of Oldham.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Bill be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House).

The House divided: Ayes, 238: Noes, 138.

Division No. 232.]
AYES.
[3.46 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Cohen, Major J. Brunel


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Briggs, J. Harold
Cooper, A. Duff


Albery, Irving James
Brittain, Sir Harry
Cope, Major William


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Couper, J. B.


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.


Astor, Viscountess
Buckingham, Sir H.
Crook, C. W.


Atholl, Duchess of
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert


Balniel, Lord
Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Curzon, Captain Viscount


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Dalkeith, Earl of


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd),


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)


Beamish, Captain T. P. H.
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)
Dawson, Sir Philip


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Dean, Arthur Wellesley


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Dixey, A. C.


Bennett, A. J.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish
Chapman, Sir S.
Doyle, Sir N. Grattan


Berry, Sir George
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Eden, Captain Anthony


Bethell, A.
Christie, J. A.
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Betterton, Henry B.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Elliot, Captain Walter E.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Clarry, Reginald George
Elveden, Viscount


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Clayton, G. C.
England, Colonel A.


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith


Brass, Captain W.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Everard, W. Lindsay


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Fielden, E. B.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Finburgh, S.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Sandon, Lord


Fleming, D. P.
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Savery, S. S.


Ford, P. J.
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew. W.)


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfst)


Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Loder, J. de V.
Skelton, A. N.


Fraser, Captain Ian
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Frece, Sir Walter de
Lumley, L. R.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Lynn, Sir R. J.
Spender Clay, Colonel H.


Ganzoni, Sir John
MacAndrew, Charles Glen
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Gates, Percy
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Macintyre, I.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Goft, Sir Park
McLean, Major A.
Strickland, Sir Gerald


Gower, Sir Robert
Malone, Major P. B.
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (W'th's'w, E)
Margesson, Captain D.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.
Sugden, sir Wilfrid


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Meyer, Sir Frank
Tasker, Major R. Inigo


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Templeton, W. P.


Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell


Hammersley, S. S.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Hartington, Marquess of
Moles Thomas
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Waddington, R.


Haslam, Henry C.
Murchison, C. K.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Hawke, John Anthony
Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Nelson, Sir Frank
Warrender, Sir Victor


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Herbert, S.(York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Watts, Dr. T.


Hilton, Cecil
Nuttall, Ellis
Wells, S. R.


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dalymple


Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Holt, Capt. H. P.
Penny, Frederick George
Windsor-Clive. Lieut.-Colonel George


Homan, C. W. J.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Wise, Sir Fredric


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Pielou, D. P.
Wolmer, Viscount


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Power, Sir John Cecil
Womersley, W. J.


Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.)
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Wood, Rt. Hon. E. (York, W. R., Ripon)


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. Hackney, N.)
Preston, William
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Hudson. R. S. (Cumb'l'nd, Whiteh'n)
Price, Major C. W. M.
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).


Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Radford, E. A.
Wood, Sir S. Hill-(High Peak)


Hunting field, Lord
Raine, W.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Hurd. Percy A.
Ramsden, E.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Hurst, Gerald B.
Remnant, Sir James
Wragg, Herbert


Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Rentoul, G. S.



Jacob, A. E.
Rhys. Hon. C. A. U.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Jephcott, A. R.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Commander B. Eyres Monsell and


Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Major Hennessy.


Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Day, Colonel Harry
Hayday, Arthur


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Dennison, R.
Hayes, John Henry


Ammon, Charles George
Dunnico, H.
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley,


Attlee, Clement Richard
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Hirst, G. H.


Baker, Walter
Fenby, T. D.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie


Barr, J.
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Gibbins, Joseph
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Gillett, George M.
John, William (Rhondda, West)


Briant, Frank
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)


Broad, F. A.
Greenall, T.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Bromfield, William
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Buchanan, G.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)


Cape, Thomas
Groves, T.
Kelly, W. T.


Clowes, S.
Grundy, T. W.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Kenyon, Barnet


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)
Kirkwood, D.


Compton, Joseph
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Lansbury, George


Connolly, M.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr, Tydvil)
Lawson, John James


Cove, W. G.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Lee, F.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Hardie, George D.
Lunn, William


Crawfurd, H. E.
Harney, E. A.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)


Dalton, Hugh
Harris, Percy A.
Mackinder, W.




MacLaren, Andrew
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


March, S.
Sitch, Charles H.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Maxton, James
Smillie, Robert
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Murnin, H.
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Naylor, T. E.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Welsh, J. C.


Oliver, George Harold
Snell, Harry
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Palin, John Henry
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Whiteley, W.


Paling, W.
Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)
Wiggins, William Martin


Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Stamford, T. W.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Stephen, Campbell
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Ponsonby, Arthur
Sutton, J. E.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Potts, John S.
Taylor, R. A.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Riley, Ben
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Ritson, J.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)
Windsor, Walter


Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Young, E. Hilton (Norwich)


Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)
Thurtle, E.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Rose, Frank H.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.



Scrymgeour, E.
Varley, Frank B.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Sexton, James
Viant, S. P.
Mr. T. Kennedy and Mr. Warne.


Resolution agreed to.

STANDING ORDERS.

Resolution reported from the Select Committee; "That, in the case of the Boothferry Bridge Bill [Lords], Petition for additional Provision, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to insert their addition Provision if the Committee on the Bill think fit."

Orders of the Day — CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS BILL

Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Bill further considered in Committee.

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Contributory Pensions for Widows, orphans and persons between the ages of 65 and 70.)

Question again proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. THOMAS: A few hours ago we were engaged in a very long discussion on this Clause, and the last utterance from my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health was that he believed that about seven o'clock in the morning he became more mellow than at any other period. I hope that on resuming the discussion this afternoon he is in the spirit in which we left him at seven o'clock. Since we rose this morning, the Government's new financial arrangements have been made public, and I want to ask the Minister of Health whether he thinks it is fair to the Opposition, and whether justice can be done to these proposals when the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not present. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Health must not assume that I am speaking in any personal sense. One cannot forget that this Bill is linked up with, and made part of, the Budget proposals. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was very careful to explain not only how his Budget was likely to be balanced, but what were the finances of this particular scheme. We immediately availed ourselves of the opportunity of pointing out to the Government that not only was it a bad scheme, but that the method by which the finance of the Bill was to be obtained was bad from every point of view.
4.0 P.M.
We do not hesitate to say that the employers cannot bear the additional burden, and we do not forget that from the point of view of the employers it is likely to have a crippling effect upon industry. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in meeting both those charges,
contented himself by saying that as far as industry is concerned the other parts of the Budget relieve the employers to such an extent that they will not feel this additional burden We are faced to day with new proposals, and I am quite sure that my right hon. Friend will avail himself of the first opportunity of explaining them to the House. Quite frankly, at the moment I do not understand them, but, as I gather, the finance of the Bill shortly was this. The present additional contribution from the employer and the employé is likely to continue until we reach a figure of unemployed persons of approximately 800,000; that is to say, the deficiency that is now being worked off was to be worked off on the basis of all those above 800,000. The Committee must keep clearly in mind that the financial proposals of this Bill are based exclusively and actuarially on that assumption. I would ask the Minister of Health to explain what has happened between the introduction of the Budget and the revised financial proposals that would warrant him saying that they are much more likely to reach the 800,000 at an earlier date than they anticipated a month ago. Do let the Committee keep that point clearly in mind.
A month ago the budgeting was for reaching 800,000 unemployed by a given date. The proposal that is now made actually assumes that that figure is likely to be reached earlier than was anticipated. Is there any evidence before the Committee that would warrant that assumption? Is there anything that would justify us in saying other than, so far from the unemployed being likely to come down, the tendency is in the other direction? I do therefore hope that the Minister will avail himself of the discussion on this Clause to explain to the Committee in detail what exactly the change means, and I hope he will also explain what part of this new charge the Exchequer is going to bear. It is a very cleverly drafted Clause, and I am quite sure that the Minister can get out of it by saying that no additional charge will be borne by the Exchequer next year. That is carefully provided for, because the period will naturally be covered by the next Budget and not by this one. But what I want the Com-
mittee to be clearly told is what exactly is the additional burden that the Exchequer is likely to bear for the revised scheme that the Committee is now considering.
Last night, or rather early this morning, my hon. Friend the Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow (Mr. Maxton) made a very eloquent appeal to the Committee, and I believe those who happened to be on the night shift when he delivered that speech, will agree that he appealed to all sections of the House. In short, he said this: You have to-day thousands of widows who, although denied the breadwinner, although struggling themselves to keep the home and family together, immediately they discover—as indeed all of them discover —their own clever children, make all the sacrifices they can to give their boys or girls the maximum of education. One need not picture up cases that one knows. Everyone will agree that it is a magnificent thing to find a struggling widow prepared to make that sacrifice for her children. My hon. Friend, in asking the Committee to consider that case, also asked the Minister of Health, who had very fairly met us on another point, whether he could not follow that up and make this provision where there are not only children who are not contributing to the household, but where, as I have already explained, it is a tremendous sacrifice to the widowed mother to keep them at the university. Surely all those who desire the well-being and future of our country ought to say, "here is a case that must be helped; we ought to help a widow in that connection." The Minister I am sure, was so mellow this morning that had we kept on for about half-an-hour he would have given way. I hope nothing has happened in the interval that will prevent that very good intention.
Last night we also had a very long discussion as to the injustice to widows who are compelled to contribute 2d. per week, and who only receive their old age pensions. The Committee will remember that there was considerable difference of opinion as to what was the actuarial value of this particular benefit. We on this side of the House said that all our information was that it was worth a contribution of 1d. per week and no more.
That was challenged not only by Members in different parts of the House, but by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Health himself, who said that he had gone into the matter, and, instead of it being 1d., it was actually 3d. We have had an opportunity of going into the matter since, and the actuarial advice placed at our disposal by the same people who gave their advice to my right hon. Friend, dealing exclusively with this question, was that they had carefully worked it out, and it was 1d. and no more. That is a direct conflict of evidence, but it does not alter the fact.

Mr. LANSBURY: It is expert evidence.

Mr. THOMAS: It is expert evidence, and that excludes all Members of the House of Commons. It only proves the case that we were making, and which we still repeat, that is is a grave injustice to take this contribution from these women, and then deny them the benefits to which they are legitimately entitled, and for which they have paid. This Clause opens out very wide possibilities, but I do ask that at this stage the Minister of Health will tell us exactly what he is prepared to do with regard to the appeal for those boys and girls at the universities, and that he will also make clear that in the new Amendment that he himself inserted, and which we appreciate, the words "day school" are not to be interpreted as merely meaning an elementary school. We want it to be made perfectly clear that they include all schools where children are being educated. I am quite sure that it is the intention of the right hon. Gentleman, but we want it to be made perfectly clear. Then I do want him to explain to the House exactly what the changed proposals mean.

Mr. BASIL PETO: I want to ask the Minister just one question with regard to the last Amendment that we considered last night. It was moved on behalf of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carmarthen (Sir A. Mond) and it would have provided that men employed in agriculture should not be called upon for this new contribution of 4d. I do not think that in the short speech which the Minister made in the early hours of this morning he really dealt with the most important aspects underlying the Amendment. Men engaged in agriculture are not subject
to the Unemployment Act. They do not insure against unemployment. They only insure under the Health Insurance Act. Therefore, this addition of 4d. is, pro rata, an enormously greater addition on what they have been in the habit of paying than it is in the case of those engaged in other trades. I quite realise that it was not possible for the Minister to have accepted an Amendment which would have given this particular trade the benefits of this Bill for nothing, but I do ask him to bear that aspect of the question in mind, and to remember, further, that the average wage in agriculture is about 30s. per week, and that therefore the 10s. per week provided under this Bill represents about one-third of the usual earnings of a woman's husband, when alive, even at the present rate of agricultural wages. It is much more than one-third of what he would probably earn over a long life engaged in agriculture. In many other trades, wages are double and three times as much, and the proportion of a widow's pension for which a man is compelled to insure represents only perhaps one-sixth or even less of his average weekly earnings.
Therefore, on those two grounds, quite apart from the fact that agriculture certainly is an industry that requires every assistance and no handicap from the Government, I hold that agricultural labourers and the farmers who employ them stand in a category by themselves. They are compelled to insure for a much larger proportion of their weekly wage than is the case in many other industries, and the additional contribution which is required by this Bill is much greater; in fact, it doubles the contribution that they have been in the habit of making from their small weekly wage. Therefore, although I voted with the right hon. Gentleman last night against the proposal to relieve agriculture in this respect, because I did not think that the Amendment, as worded, was reasonable, I do ask the Minister to consider very seriously before we get to the end of this Bill the special condition of agricultural labourers and those who employ them, and to try and find some Amendment by which he will be able to ease off this sudden great increase in the amount that will be taken compulsorily from the very small wages of those skilled men engaged in agriculture can earn.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: In view of the information now in the possession of the Committee as regards the proposals for unemployment insurance contributions, one cannot be altogether surprised that the Minister was anxious to get his Clause last night before it was available to the House. He had suggested, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer suggested before him, that the relief to be given to industry through the Unemployment Insurance Amendment Bill would be such that the burdens imposed by this Bill would be of small account. If we examine the figures now before the Committee we see that the burdens, instead of being lessened, will be increased by this Clause. Although it is true that the total contribution of employers and employed is reduced from 1s. 7d. to 1s. 3d. in the case of men and from 1s. 3d. to 1s. 1d. in the case of women under the Amending Bill, at the same time by this Clause there is an addition of 8d. for men and 4d. for women, and the net result will be that, instead of the contributions being as to-day 1s. 7d. for men and 1s. 3d. for women, they will, under this Clause, be increased to 1s. 11d. for men and 1s. 5d. for women. That is a very heavy burden to place on industry at present.
In the same Bill which proposes to give relief to the extent of 4d. for men and 2d. for women there is a provision that will add considerably to local burdens in the matter of rates on industry in the locality. The Committee should take into cognisance both these financial proposals in order to appreciate the net result of this particular Clause. The proposal of the Government to increase the waiting period from three to six days will add a very heavy burden to industry. There was an interesting report made by the Ministry of Labour the other day on the result of an inquiry into the personal circumstances of some 10,000 insured contributors. It was pointed out that in November, 1923, 10 per cent. of those insured and receiving benefit had to supplement that by going to the guardians, and in November, 1924, after the waiting period had been reduced from six days to three days, and owing, no doubt, to that reduction, the percentage had fallen to 5 per cent., thus halving the burden on the local authorities, due to those receiving unemployment benefit
having to supplement it from the rates. That will be reversed by the operation of the Government's new proposal.
If the black spots are not to be borne down by the added burden the Government must do more than they are doing. According to this Clause the contribution which the State is making for pensions is altogether inadequate. What the Government propose in the way of reducing the premiums for unemployment insurance does not meet the case. I may give an example from my own town showing how this may work in a particular district. There are 55,000 insured persons, and one-fifth of those are calculated as women. According to the Bill the net additions to the premiums to be paid between employers and employed will be 4d. for men and 2d. for women. In this particular district they will thus have to find £825 a week in addition to what they are now paying, and there will also be the burden added to the rates owing to the reduction of the waiting period. It is estimated by various local authorities that that will mean an addition of from 1s. to 2s. in the £ on the rates.
Against that, it is true that there will be a small set-off in the case of those widows and orphans who are drawing relief from the guardians, and will, under the Government Bill, get pensions, but I am advised that that set-off will be comparatively small, and will not be anything like equal to the burden added owing to the reduction of the waiting period. Before the Committee leaves this Clause, we should have an assurance from the Government that they are going to do something more than simply add these burdens. We all believe that the pensions are a desirable form of social relief, but the burden is placed on the wrong backs. It should be on the whole community, and wealthy people not engaged in industries, and not helping to find employment, should bear their share. I hope that the Government will hold out some hope that they are going to give some relief to the black spots for which they have expressed so much sympathy.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: The Debate has now made clear that there are going to be tens of thousands or rather hundreds of thousands of women who will contribute for years under this Bill and
who will then find themselves shut out from either widows' pensions or orphans' pensions. Yesterday we discussed the question of the woman who would be in this position, because after having been employed and contributed she marries an uninsured man. I wish to raise in connection with that, as part of the same problem, another class of woman, a far sadder case, perhaps the most tragic figure in the whole of modern industry. That is the unmarried woman who battles all her life for herself in the industrial market. Our contention is that the whole of this class of women, who contribute without receiving widows' pensions, are being treated with injustice, because they contribute a sum which is far more than is necessary to cover the chance which they may have of an old age pension at 65.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood) indicated dissent.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: The Parliamentary Secretary indicates dissent but this is stated distinctly in the Actuaries' Report on page 5. It states that women contributors are to be called upon to pay contributions which cover not only their own old age pensions at 65 but will assist towards the contribution for widows' and orphans' pensions at the same time. That is a point to which I wish to ask the attention of the Government. To take a woman, say, of 55 or 56, who has never been married, and ask her to contribute towards widows' pensions is to turn this Bill, for her, into a mockery. The Parliamentary Secretary, and I think the Minister of Health, stated yesterday that these women would, at any rate, get the old age pension at 65, and that these contributions were to provide on account of that benefit, but in reality in a large proportion of the cases, which I am considering, of unmarried women, I should say in the majority of cases this Bill is so framed that I doubt whether they will get the old age pension at 65.
There are very few women in employment at 65. I take what is not an abnormal case at all. If I am wrong I hope that I shall be corrected, because at the beginning of these intricate discussions it is not easy to understand all that the Bill contains, but my reading is this, that if you take the normal case of a woman in a mill, such as there are in my consti-
tuency, she enters at 16, and she goes on there for 20 or 30 years, but in thousands of cases—I should say, in the majority of cases—by the time that the woman is 55 she leaves industry. She is in many cases too physically deteriorated to continue battling for life in the merciless and unchivalrous conditions of modern industries. She would not be covered by the Clause with regard to sickness, because she is not sick in any technical sense of the term, or the Clause with regard to being genuinely unemployed, because she is not that. She has fallen out altogether. She is living on her relatives or on charity. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] If hon. Members say no they are ignorant of the fate of hundreds of thousands of women. That is not an exceptional but a normal case.
My reading of this Bill is that a woman of that sort who falls out at the age of 55, and is out of insurance for the next 10 years will, as a consequence of that, not get the old age pension at 65. If that is so, here is a case in which the most defenceless class of women will be contributing for the whole of their working lives, and will at the end get no old age pension, no widow's pension, no orphan's pension, and practically nothing beyond what they can get at present. Committee discussions in this House will be useless if a case of this sort is not met. I want to come back, not as the best means but as one of the possible means of alleviating the problem, to the discussion which took place yesterday on voluntary insurance. In the case of a woman like this it may be possible to have voluntary insurance. Again I come back to the Bill. If she wishes to enter into voluntary insurance, by this Bill she has to insure herself, not only for the old age pension, but under the National Health Insurance Act at the same time.
Such a woman might conceivably get together 3d. or 4d. a week, but the Minister insists that she shall get together 1s. 1d. a week, and, as she is already sure to be insured for death benefits, it makes the total amount a sum which in the vast majority of these cases it is impracticable to pay. Therefore voluntary insurance under the provisions of this Bill as drafted is not a solution of the injustice to which these women will be subjected. I, therefore, ask the Government at this early stage to look again into this question of
voluntary insurance. Can we have a system by which a woman of that sort, by continuing in insurance, could use all the accumulated payments made for the previous 30 years as a sort of reserve fund for insurance for the remaining few years that she needs to consider? Let her insure for an old age pension at 65, or for a disablement pension if she is incapacitated at an early date. I have tried to consider the difficulties in the way of this proposal, as they were stated by the Parliamentary Secretary last night. He said that the objection to this proposal of a special scheme of voluntary insurance for this Bill alone, was that this Bill was interlocked with Health Insurance, and that it was not convenient to make the separation. That appears to me to be a mere generalisation, which at the most can refer to nothing but certain administrative technique.
I have no expert informants, but I have asked one or two persons who understand this subject what is the difficulty. They say that the administrative difficulty is that if this were done it would need a separate system of cards and stamps for voluntary insurance. That difficulty is surely not one which it is impossible to overcome? You have separate stamps under the Health Insurance Act for low paid wage-earners, separate stamps for exempt persons, separate stamps for women, and all those separate stamps must be a greater administrative difficulty than the separate stamps for this purpose, because these would not need to be put on by the employer but by the voluntary contributor. It is the business of the Government to overcome difficulties of that sort, and in order to impress upon them the importance of not allowing administrative technique to stand in the way of this change, I ask them to remember that we are now bringing before them perhaps one of the most pathetic-tragedies in modern industry. The women on whose behalf I am speaking are, in fact, more entitled to our sympathy than the widows, because they are women who have never had a man to support them all their lives; they have battled for themselves all their lives, and they are women who, unlike the majority of young widows, cannot look forward to children supporting them in their old age.

Miss WILKINSON: I want to emphasise some of the points that the last speaker has made, and to offer one or two further suggestions. Before we leave this Clause we ought to have some very definite statement from the Minister of Health as to what he proposes to do for this large mass of contributors to the scheme. May I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that there are roughly 2,000,000 more women than men in this country, and that most of them are wage-earning women. In asking these women to contribute to an insurance scheme, you are asking a large proportion of them to insure against a risk that they cannot possibly run. What the Government are asking is that a large number of women should come in and insure, should pay contributions to this scheme in order to help it along and make it solvent, and then the Government are not making any real provision to safeguard these women against the possible loss of all benefit under the scheme. You cannot say whether the 2,000,000 women are going to marry or not. On the other hand, at a certain age the risk of marriage and of children diminishes. It diminishes at a much earlier age in the case of women than in the case of men. There is an age at which it is very unlikely that a woman will be left as a widow with children. As things are, the single woman contributing under the Bill is successively penalised; she is penalised at almost every stage of her insured life. She has to pay, as the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson) has said, 1s. 5d. a week. The average wage of women, those who are covered by the Trade Boards, is 26s. to 28s. a week. The average wage of the majority of women is under 30s. a week. Therefore, a contribution of 1s. 5d. a week is a very serious drain on a woman's resources. Her resources are so slender that she is not getting enough in food or clothes and comfort and rent to keep herself efficient.
In the case of very large numbers of textile workers and of many of the workers in London and the Midlands, a very slender wage is further depleted by systematic short time. Even then, if these women get for a short time week only 10s. or 15s., they will still have to pay the 1s. 5d. per week. [HON. MEMBERS: "Or six shillings a week! "] I am speaking moderately, so as not to
exaggerate my case. In the case of shop assistants, you are dealing with women who are often getting under 10s. a week. But they will still have to pay 1s. 5d. a week. Therefore you ask these women to pay an amount that is entirely disproportionate to the wages that they get. The men pay 4d. more, it is true, but the standard of wages of men at its worst —it is pretty bad—is considerably higher in proportion than the standard of wages of women. It is true that the man has a family to keep, but he is at least insured against a possible risk. None the less, you are asking the woman who has so much less wages to pay this totally disproportionate sum out of her very slender resources. Then, when she is in the labour market, by this Clause you are subsidising her competitor. Take the case of the young widow coming into industry. I admit that she is not coming in in hundreds of thousands, but this is none the less a very serious problem to the single girl. A young able-bodied widow comes in. Her husband has paid in for two years, and he dies, though she may have been married to him only for a few months. She conies in with a standing pension of 10s. a week. In addition to getting that pension of 10s. a week, she has not to pay the 1s. 5d. She is specially exempted. She who has the money to pay is specially exempted from paying the 1s. 5d. On the other hand, there is the single girl, for instance, a girl seeking work in one of the cheap drapery emporiums of London, where wages are from 10s. to 15s. a week. A young widow comes along and offers to take 1s. or 2s. less in wages and gets the job. Her competitor, the single women, is faced with this competition and with the drain of 1s. 5d. per week in addition.
Under the Insurance Act the Minister of Labour is restoring the gap in order to get money to help to pay for these pensions. You may say to the unemployed man, "You have this gap, but you are going to get pensions for your widow." What are you going to say to the unemployed girl? There is a further disability for her. She is now suddenly told, "If you are unemployed you must have a waiting period of six days, and your unemployment pay by that amount is reduced." Again, she is paying for a risk she is not running.
Therefore, she is penalised once more. In the Insurance (No. 2) Act there is a Clause which provides that where a, woman has reached a certain stage of unemployment she may be able to prove that she is genuinely unemployed, that she has been genuinely seeking work. I have dealt with many such cases as a member of a local committee. They are the most pathetic cases with which we deal. They are the cases of women who have gone into blind alley occupations and then have come to us when unemployed. There is no likelihood of their ever being employed again. You cannot say to them, "Take domestic service." No housewife who is looking for a young and active domestic servant will employ these women of 45 or 50. They may get jobs as occasional charwomen. If they do they fall out of the scheme. I have had to tell scores of these women, "There is no reasonable prospect of your ever getting employment." Under the Insurance (No. 2) Act these women are denied their unemployment benefit.
I ask the Minister to realise the condition of these women. They have paid for unemployment benefit all their lives. Under this scheme they will pay for these widows' pensions also all their lives. They are to help to insure a risk for women who are very much better able to pay than themselves, and then they are to be told that there is nothing for them. I ask, in view of the large amounts which these women have to their credit, whether it is not possible to provide some kind of alternative benefit for them? Would it not be possible at some later stage of the proceedings on this Bill to add a Clause at least enabling these women to get back the contributions which they have paid? I would say to the Minister—if you cannot do anything else for them, at least give them back what they have paid. Do not penalise them at every stage, and after telling them that they must insure and that it is compulsory thrift, reward them for their thrift by turning them off every single fund to which they have contributed. If they have been contributing, and if they get out, and if they are living, God knows how, on relatives and by means of any kind of odd work, they automatically fall out of the scheme, and therefore they will not even get this pension at the age of 65. This is a serious blot on the Bill,
and one which will be resented by a large number of women voters. The woman over 30 will, of course, be more conscious of the injustice than the woman under 30, who is considering the possibility of marriage. I suggest to the Minister that this will seriously affect a large and important section of voters in this country.
I come to another point, in regard to which even the widow herself is likely to suffer considerable injustice. We have not yet made clear the position of the unemployed man and the unemployed man's wife under Clause I. I hope before we pass from it we shall have an authoritative statement on the real position in this respect after the confusion which seemed to prevail last night. I confess I look at this Bill from the point of view of the woman. The man's benefit either comes when he is 65 or when he is dead, but I want the Committee to consider the point of view of the woman who is left behind to carry on in this cold and unfeeling world. You may have a case of a woman who does the very best she can for her children and whose husband, though a steady workman, becomes unemployed. If this man, through his misfortune, as happens in so many cases in Middlesbrough, is turned off the insurance fund on the ground that he is not genuinely seeking work, what is the position? We have many cases in that area where men are turned off as not genuinely seeking work, although they have tramped the boots off their feet in the search for work. These men are not given a chance of proving their innocence of the charge that they are not genuinely seeking work. We have repeatedly asked the Minister of Labour what constitutes "genuinely seeking employment," but he will not do so, and he says that it must be left to the local circumstances of the case. Are we to add a further penalisation in such cases? While the husband is alive and the woman has the children to look after, she has all the trouble of going to the guardians and of meeting the difficulties which the guardians are making in overburdened towns like Middlesbrough, and is she to be haunted by the further fear that this disability awaits her if the man dies? We must remember that, as a result of malnutrition and of searching for work in wintry weather without proper food or clothing, the risks of death are
infinitely greater to such men than to men in ordinary employment. Are we going to add to this woman's troubles the further horror that she may find, if the man dies, that her contributions are lost and that she is left penniless to do the best she can?
This difficulty is inherent in a contributory scheme, and that is one of the reasons why we have pressed for a non-contributory scheme. The difficulty of a contributory scheme is that you pay, whether there is need or not, and you may have the most terrible cases of need and you are not able to do anything for them because of the state of the contributions of the persons concerned. That is an inverted idea of meeting real need we feel that, in the long run, the Exchequer would have saved money by meeting the real need rather than by meeting the cases of these young widows and giving pensions where they are not required and that it would have been a much more satisfactory solution. However, the Committee has adopted the contributory scheme, and we must do the best we can with it and, therefore, I ask, first, whether the Minister can see any way of providing for those women who have paid in for a long time as single women and are not likely to get benefit and, secondly, while this terrible unemployment crisis is with us, will he make some arrangement by which the wives and children of unemployed men are kept in benefit? Do not let us add to the difficulties of these people by penalising the wife and children of the man who is so unfortunate as to lose his job.

Sir K. WOOD: I presume the hon. Member is referring to the case of the man who has been insured and who goes out and becomes unemployed.

Miss WILKINSON: That is the point I am making. I feel that we have not made that matter clear. Further, I ask the Minister if it is not possible to consider the position of the wives and children of men who are earning less than £250 a year and who are in occupations where the risk of death is great and where the widows may be left without provision. Even if we have to add to the Exchequer contribution, in dealing with these matters, we should be doing something
to meet the case of women and children who will be looking for assistance under this scheme and who are likely to be disappointed in a very harsh way.

Mr. HARNEY: I listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. Member who has just addressed the Committee, but I do not propose to follow her argument. I approve of nearly everything she said, and I expressed my views on the question last night. Taking the view I do, that the contributory scheme is the proper one, any suggestions I have to make must be limited by the fact that the scheme has to be worked out actuarially. I was astonished to hear from the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson) that the method which the Government had worked out of meeting the difficulty with reference to the deficiency period, was one which really meant that they paid nothing at all. We have been told that the consideration in introducing this pension scheme now was that owing to the fact that the unemployment insurance scheme was breaking down through abnormal unemployment and a deficiency was arising of £7,000,000, it was necessary while that deficiency lasted, to increase the contributions by 4d. above the ordinary.
It was strongly impressed upon the Government that as long as that state of things continued industry could not bear this further increase. They took time to consider it, and I understand from the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for West Middlesbrough, their attitude comes to this: "We will take 2d. off the increased contributions of the men and 1d. off the increased contributions of the women and the corresponding amount off the increased contribution of the employer in order that so far as book-keeping is concerned the Exchequer will meet that difficulty." But the same Treasury which says, "We will meet it," also says, "We will change the Unemployment Insurance Amendment Act of last year and we will again make the waiting period six days instead of three days and therefore, whatever extra amount we have to pay in order to meet the difficulty put forward by many of our Members, we will get back in the diminished amounts of benefit payable under the unemployment insurance scheme. Further, we recognise that the reduction in the amount which we have to pay in benefit will have to be
made up by the localities; that the ratepayers will have to make up what we used to pay." Therefore it all comes to this, that this great scheme which the Government have been hatching for so long, and which we were told was to bring brightness to the "dark spots," turns out to be nothing more than a pretence of giving concessions, and when those concessions are worked out we find it is the ratepayers who will pay.
I think I may be excused the expression that it is a very mean scheme. I think it is entirely an unstatesmanlike scheme. Although I, for one, felt obliged to say that we would have to adopt the contributory scheme having regard to the Budget, I always recognised that these social services and this unemployment charge should not be attributable to the localities. In the one case as a community we owe it to those who have got past their work and those who find themselves in difficult positions in the struggle of life, that we should lend a helping hand and there is no reason why, because one town has a plentiful crop of necessitous cases and another a small crop, one should be rated more heavily than the other. Similarly in regard to unemployment, you may have engineers, shipwrights, or coalminers unemployed, but why should the localities in which those industries are carried on be the localities to suffer? The whole community should suffer.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and learned Member is getting rather wide of Clause 1.

5.0 P.M.

Mr. HARNEY: I beg pardon. I really was going a little wide but the point to which I was coming was this. This is a Bill in the first Clause of which we say that for certain benefits certain contributions are to be paid. Therefore, it is important that, before we pass the Clause, we should see what are the real contributions to be paid, and, as a result of what we have hear, the real contributions to be paid are not such as will appear in the Bill, but part will appear in the Bill, and the other part will be paid by the ratepayers. It is true, of course, that your benefits must be limited actuarially by your contributions, but I have not heard anybody develop the point I am going to make You have linked this Bill directly with
national health. You are now linking it indirectly with the Unemployment Fund Suppose you made that link complete, what would be the position? It is far better to have a man receiving a pension than to have a man receiving the dole. A pension is a real good; a dole is a necessary evil, and if you can take a man off the dole, and put another man on to the pension, then you are reducing unemployment, you are reducing the payment of doles and you will get a larger sum with which to pay pensions How is that to be brought about? At the present time you do not, in the offer of 10s. provide a sufficient allurement to a man of 65 to give up work, and make room for someone else; but if you made your pension a real sustenance—25s. a week, or something like that—you might then say, "Well, the pensions will be this larger amount, and any fine, hale old fellow of 65 who prefers work to the pension, let him have his work and wages," and let the pension only be given to the man when he says, "I would sooner take the pension than continue work,"
There are, I am told, 600,000 or 700,000 over 65 years of age every year. All these, of course, would not give up work if you made an attractive pension, but a good many would. You would probably take 300,000 off the top every year, say, at £1 a week, which would amount to £300,000 a week, but you would be taking 300,000 men who are standing round the Employment Exchanges, and giving them employment which the others have vacated. In that way, by making the pension adequate, you would bring about a result that would enable you to pay it. You would be making it such that men would be willing, and could fairly be forced to say they would prefer at 65, 66, or 67 to give up work, and have this decent sustenance, and at once there would be a demand at the bottom for persons to come in and fill their places. One would balance the other. That is a view I put forward, and I think it is worth consideration. I do not know if that exceedingly able actuary, Sir Alfred Watson, has applied his mind to that, but it does seem to me, that if you worked out your tables on the basis of making your pension such that persons would be willing to take it, and come out of the employment market, they would pay for themselves, and you
would be having more efficient men, and also having an addition to your contributions by men in work. I make that suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman, not that he will follow it immediately, but as one, at all events, worth considering.

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Neville Chamberlain): It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I take this opportunity of making a reply to some of the observations addressed to us on this Clause. As the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down invited me to explore the new and brilliant suggestion which he offered to me, I may tell him that, naturally, such an attractive proposition as that which he sketched had not entirely escaped my attention. But I think there is a fallacy in his argument, and it is this, that while he imagines he is making a balance between the saving he affects by the reduction of unemployment and the increase he proposes to give in the old age pension, the amount of unemployment with which we have to deal at the present time is, I hope, and, as I think, we have every reason to believe, of a temporary nature. It is not always going to be what it is to-day, and, therefore, in order to cope with a temporary charge for unemployment, the hon. and learned Gentleman would put on the State a burden which would last for ever, and would have no compensating advantages if unemployment came down to normal dimensions.
One of the subjects upon which we spent most time last night was that of the contributory principle, and some of us, I think, found a little difficulty in relating the arguments used to the subject to which they were, apparently, addressed. At any rate, if it be true that the question whether a contributory principle should be employed or not depends upon the burden which you are thereby going to put on industry, Members to-day have information in their hands as to the new measures which the Government are proposing to give some relief to industry. I do not think it would be proper, or, indeed, in order, for me to accept the invitation of the right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) of going into an elaborate explanation of the new Unemployment Insurance Bill. That must be
reserved for the Second Reading. All that we are concerned about here, I submit, is what reduction in the contributions by employer and employed is provided in the new Bill, and how far will that relieve the burden, or the alleged burden, which is going to be put upon industry by our proposals under this Bill? The net result of the new proposal is, that all the immense benefits which are provided under this Bill will accrue for a weekly payment, in respect of a man, of 2d. by the employer and 2d. by the man himself, and, in the case of a woman, of 1d. in each case. Therefore, I do not think the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson) can say that is a crushing burden.
There was a suggestion by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnstaple (Mr. B. Peto), and, if I understood the gist of his argument, he felt that agriculture has been a little left out in the cold, because relief was being given to other forms of industry which was not being given to agriculture. That, naturally, follows from the fact that other industries have had to sustain a burden which has not been put upon agriculture, which does not come within the scope of the Unemployment Insurance Act. I would point out to my hon. Friend that his argument that the benefits in respect of which agricultural labourers have to insure are far greater in proportion to their rates of wages than in other industries, is really a testimony to the exceptional benefits the agricultural labourer may expect to get from this scheme, and if you add to that the fact, which I think is admitted, that the average expectation of life in the case of agricultural workers is greater than that of the workers in the towns, it will be seen that agricultural labourers have to expect greater benefits from their contributions under this Bill than those who work in other industries, some of which are very much worse off, and, in which both employers and workers are far less able to meet the burdens than the agricultural industry.
We have had a repetition of the arguments that were addressed to us last night upon the alleged injustices in the Bill, which injustices appear largely to be upon women, but they nearly all rely on the fact that hon. Members insist upon taking hypothetical cases of certain individuals, who, having paid their con-
tributions, do not come in for the full benefits which others may, by the fortunate chances of their lives, expect to obtain, and that is represented as being an injustice. I cannot accept that view. You have got to treat this insurance scheme as a whole, and the contributions of women are, as explained in the Actuary's Report—hon. Members will find it on page 5—not exactly proportioned to benefits, because a large part of the benefits that are received by women really arise out of the contributions of the men, that is, taking into account the fixing of women's contributions at half that of men. If you are to select all the hard cases, and say this or that woman, when she has arrived at a certain age, and in certain circumstances, is no longer able to expect to get certain benefits under the Bill—if you are going to take all these hard cases, and make a refund of contributions, of course the only result would be that you would have to put up the contributions all round. The object of this scheme is to take a flat-rate contribution. Some get more advantages out of it and some get less, but the main thing to remember is, taking it as a whole, that the benefits which will be received are far in excess of the contributions which will have to be paid.
I would like to address myself to a point put by the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith). He took the case of a woman, of which he said there are thousands similar. There may be, but I do not know why he should think there are a majority of women in circumstances which he pictured—the elderly woman, who has never been married, has worked all her life up to 55 and then fallen out of employment.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: I said the majority of unmarried women probably fall out of industry.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I doubt if the hon. Gentleman has statistics to show how many such women there are. Undoubtedly there are some, but I should say, in a certain number of cases, to begin with, those women will be covered by the Prolongation of Insurance Act. That would account for a certain number of them, and, where that does not come into operation, there is always the possibility, the hon. Member himself recognises, that a woman might become a voluntary contributor. He says it is
too much to expect that she will pay 1s. 1d. a week as a voluntary contributor. There, again, I say you must not assume it is too much in every case. It may be too much in some cases, I agree, but you cannot provide for every case. Let us consider, in the first place, what is this 1s. 1d. she will have to pay at the age of 55 worth? I am told that for a women who begins paying the voluntary contribution at 55, the benefits they receive are over 3s. 6d. a week, and so, at any rate, if she can contribute, she is getting very good value, indeed, for her contributions. The hon. Member said he would like to separate health insurance from pensions insurance, but would it be wise to do so?

Mr. THOMAS: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean, when he says that that benefit might be described as being worth 3s. 6d, a week, that it is on the. assumption that the contribution commences at 55 years of age?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If she becomes a voluntary contributor—

Mr. WHEATLEY: If she has been a contributor prior to 55 years of age?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It depends on the age, of course.

Mr. WHEATLEY: What about where a woman has been contributing compulsorily and becomes a voluntary contributor?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It would no doubt in that case be less, but in every case the actuarial value of the benefits would be greater than the contribution paid. I was asking the hon. Member if he was sure that the separation of health insurance from pensions insurance was desirable. I am informed that the experience of the Ministry of Health is that it is generally found to be an extremely wise thing to encourage women of this age to insure for health, as they get very great benefits. They may qualify for sickness benefit, for disablement benefit, for medical attendance, for the supply of drugs, and in some cases for convalescent home treatment. All those things are of very great value to a woman of that age, who is, of course, much more liable to sickness than a younger woman, and, therefore, I think that, on those grounds alone, one would desire not to do any-
thing to discourage a woman from entering into health insurance. But the hon. Member has himself, I think, explored this subject with a desire to see what the difficulties were, and I think he must take into account the administrative difficulties. If you are going to have a separation between pensions insurance and health insurance, it means that you have to have at least three kinds of stamps. You have to have a combined stamp for health and pensions, you have to have a separate stamp for health, and you have to have a separate stamp for pensions. That means that the approved society has to keep a record of its members and which form of stamp is attributable to each member, and it would be most extraordinarily difficult to check the stamps and to see that they are correct in value in respect of each individual card. In fact, I am told that the difficulty is so great that it would be almost impossible to prevent a considerable amount of evasion or abuse under a system of that kind.
There is another difficulty. How are you going to get the contributions from the voluntary contributor? It is easy enough when you have compulsory contributions, as we have in health insurance, where you get the stamps put on by the employer, but when you have to take a voluntary contributor, how are you going to ensure that the contributions are kept up? All experience is that these contributions are not kept up, that they lapse, and I am afraid that, even it we could, on other grounds, adopt the suggestion made by the hon. Member, we should find that in a very large number of cases the voluntary contributions would lapse after a time, and those women would be worse off even than they are now, because they would have paid contributions for which they could not in any case possibly receive benefit. Therefore, on all grounds, I feel that, although I pay tribute to the hon. Member for having made a serious attempt to find a solution for these difficulties, I find myself unable to say to him that I think his suggestion would be a practicable solution.
There is one other thing that I want to say to the Committee, and I say it by way of explanation. It was stated, I think, by the hon. Member for East Middlesbrough
(Miss Wilkinson) that we got in some confusion last night about the Prolongation of Insurance Act as to the exact position of unemployed men and women, and I am afraid that I am partly responsible for that confusion myself. I think the conclusion at which I arrived was correct, but I am afraid that, in giving explanations to the Committee, I used some words which misled them, and I must ask for the indulgence of the Committee, because it is extremely difficult to keep in one's head all these complicated conditions about different Acts and, sometimes, different regulations. I think the mistake arose in this way, that I described the conditions that were necessary under the Prolongation of Insurance Act to keep a person in insurance, one of those conditions being that it should be shown that he had been genuinely seeking employment. I misled the Committee there, and confused two things. The Act does not say that. The Act says that the condition is that the approved society has to be satisfied that the insured person has not been unemployed by reason of having entered upon some non-insurable occupation. The Committee will see that that is a very different thing, and that is the point which has to be decided by the approved societies themselves, and it is not connected with unemployment at all. What I was thinking of in connection with unemployment was another matter, which is dealt with by Regulations, for giving a free credit of contributions to unemployed persons in order to secure them a right to cash benefit. I think I ought to apologise to the Committee for having misled them in that respect, but I hope that that, explanation will make it clear and, at the same time, remove some of the doubts and fears which have been felt by hon. Members.

Mr. THOMAS: That explains why we were so very emphatic last night.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I should like to congratulate the Minister of Health on his wonderfully fresh and vigorous appearance after the ordeal through which he has been passing. In the remarks with which he has just favoured the Committee, he attempted to explain how the burden on industry has been substantially reduced by the provisions that are contained in a Bill now before the House, which it would not be in order to discuss. But I think that, in doing that, he claims
something for which he has no just title. He assumes that the contributions to unemployment insurance which the present condition of industry has obliged us to make are permanent in their character and dealing with a permanent situation; in other words, that unemployment is only temporary, and that employment is going to be much better in the very near future than it is at the moment. Indeed, he began his remarks by saying that unemployment is not always going to be what it is to-day. I think that, if he could have assured us that unemployment would be as it is to-day, it would have brought a certain amount of relief to many people in this country, because unemployment to-day is not what it was last week. It is, in round figures, 20,000 worse than it was a week ago, and there are people in this country who fear—and they can give figures to support their fear—that the longer the present Government are in office, the worse unemployment will be.
The nation has had to bear an extraordinary burden as a result of that dislocation in industry. Everyone hopes that that burden will not be permanent. The captains of industry are groaning under the load, and they are appealing to the Government to bring about a state of affairs that will reduce this burden on industry. They are waiting day by day for a reduction. The Government propose to make a reduction of that particular burden, and because of the fact that this widows' pension scheme has been related to industry, the Minister of Health now comes forward and asks to take full credit for his scheme for the reduction that is to be made on quite a different burden. I submit that he is not entitled to make that claim, but that we are justified in expecting the Government to make a reduction of the burden on industry for unemployment, apart altogether from the scheme which is now Before the Committee. I think he was rather weak also in the attempt to reply to the case regarding the position of unmarried women that was put up by my hon. Friends the Members for East Middlesbrough (Miss Wilkinson) and Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith). There is no doubt at all that in this scheme the right hon. Gentleman has dragged in, I will not say by the hair of the head, women who have a good deal to lose, and very little to gain,
by coming in, in order to strengthen the position of this scheme and justify the policy of the Government.
I want to take this opportunity, which may be one of the final opportunities, of protesting, in the name of the Opposition, against the whole principle of a contributory scheme. I would remind the Minister that he has brought in many women who have no desire to come in, and that he is leaving out a large number of women who should be provided for if any benefit is to accrue from the widows' pension scheme at all. If I thought that the provision of pensions for widows in this country would reach its final form in the form in which this Bill will leave this House, I would not vote for any extension of this Bill. To my mind, it might have been properly described, as I said on the Second Reading, as a Widows Poverty Bill, and I would do nothing that would bring into the scheme women who to-day, from local rates, are receiving 16s. or 17s. a week, and who, under the Measure now before the Committee, will be asked to maintain themselves on 10s. a week. I do not believe that any woman in this country can maintain herself in a healthy condition on 10s. a week, and on that point I disagree with His Majesty's Government and with the Minister of Health, but I am hopeful still that, before the Bill leaves this House, we may, by peaceful persuasion, induce the right hon. Gentleman to remove some of its most obnoxious restrictions and limitations.
I know, of course, that we are entirely at his mercy. He has only to give the signal, and from the highways and the byeways of this House hundreds of people will appear, and reason will be submerged in the force of numbers which he controls. But in considering a scheme of widows' pensions, we have to remember that we are laying the foundations of a policy that we may reasonably expect will not be left for ever as this Government will send it to another place. The Election of 1924 will not, I hope, be the last General Election to take place in this country. I have reasonable ground for saying that many Members of this House will yet live to submit themselves again to the judgment of the electors. I have no doubt at all that if the electors of this country were asked to-morrow to pronounce judgment on the single issue
of whether this scheme should be contributory or not, there would be an overwhelming majority against the proposals of the Government. We can only look forward to the time when they shall have that opportunity of expressing their views, and we feel stimulated in our belief that they will give the Government the punishment they deserve for the crime they have perpetrated. I can say on behalf of my own friends that when that alternative Government takes the place of the Government which is now being rapidly discredited, that that alternative Government—which doubtless will be a Labour Government—will take the very earliest opportunity of reversing the contributory principle of this Bill and making it non-contributory.

Sir K. WOOD: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that as a definite official undertaking on behalf of the Labour party?

Mr. WHEATLEY: I do.

Viscountess ASTOR: On behalf of which party, right or left?

Mr. WHEATLEY: It is not the Labour party to which the Noble Lady belongs; it is the Labour party that represents the workers of this country. In the hope, then, that one day in the future the scheme of old age pensions will be put on a non-contributory basis, I want to criticise the Government for having left out of the scheme very many very deserving sections of the working classes of this country. There are thousands, tens of thousands, of women who have been altogether left out of the scheme. I find that the total number of widows in Great Britain is 1,825,675. This, of course, includes widows with means, widows who are having pensions, and widows who are now old age pensioners. It also includes 152,335 widows who are now war pensioners. But there still remains a very large number, no less than 469,424 occupied widows in this country—nearly half-a-million, that is, of which a very large number, 338,000, are employés or in business for themselves.
In its present form the scheme excludes large sections of these. It excludes, for instance, all widows of small shopkeepers to whom reference was made by myself
in the discussion which took place in the early hours of this morning. It excludes such women as the widows of crofters, women who probably render as much useful service to the country in the course of their lives as any other section of the population. It leaves out of account altogether the widows also of the professional classes. Quite clearly, apart altogether from the fault of the contributory basis, this scheme cannot be accepted as being in a satisfactory form or in that condition that will satisfy the democracy of this country. To-day all we can do is to protest; to take this opportunity of protesting against the underlying obnoxious contributory principle of the Bill on the part of those who are being burdened by it. I also protest against the exclusion from it of those who ought to be brought within it, and given the benefits which we may reasonably expect from the advent of a Labour Government.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I am quite sure that the Minister will not think me ungrateful, after the way he met my Amendment last night, if I still protest against certain injustices that remain in this first Clause of this Bill. I am quite sure that the Amendments he made last night for me he made because he thought—and I fully agree—that the proposals were a great improvement on the Bill as it originally stood. I would venture, therefore, to appeal to him to make an improvement in certain other lines in this Clause in order really that he may make it a better Bill. The right hon. Gentleman has expressed disagreement with my hon. Friends the Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson) and Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) on the case they have put up in regard to women's position under this Bill. He says in effect: "It is no good your saying to us that certain women will make a great number of contributions and get no benefit, that is not the essence of insurance. The essence of insurance"—I quite agree—"is that a large number of people pay their contributions and that only some of them obtain benefit as a result of those contributions." That, I say, is quite true. But there is another essential factor in insurance that this Bill does not carry out. It is this: When a person is asked to insure he insures against certain definite risks and he has a right to feel dissatisfied if, having paid the money for those risks, eventually he
does not get recompense if the risks actually occur. Our criticism of this Bill is that so far as women are concerned they have not got their benefit, because when a risk for which they have actually paid happens, from certain circumstances over which they have no control, the benefit does not come their way.
Let me put in the form of the insurance, about which we all know, against railway accident. When a passenger goes by train he in many cases takes out an insurance policy. Eventually it is only very few people who suffer accidents, and the contributions of those people who arrive safely at the end of their journey in large numbers make up for the very few accidents that a few people receive. But it would be a very serious form of insurance if the people, in taking their railway ticket, and with it an insurance ticket, found when an accident really happened that they were denied the recompense from circumstances over which they had no control. That is the position, in our contention, of the women who enter this insurance scheme. The Minister says that the contributions which the women make are part of the whole scheme and come back to the women, in the aggregate, in the shape of the various benefits received. That may be true. That is an actuarial question which may be true, taking all the factors of the Bill into account.
But the point is this: that you ask the woman to pay contributions in the early years, at the age of 16, when she enters industry; you ask, I say, the woman to pay her contributions, and hold out to her certain promises that if she pays those contributions and takes her share in this compulsory insurance scheme that she will have the benefit, if she becomes a widow —with or without children—that if she dies, her husband being dead also, and there are left orphan children, that those orphan children will be provided for, and that when she reaches the age of 65 she will get a pension. As a matter of fact, under the terms of this Clause, no one of these three risks are actually certain to be provided for in the case of the women. Let me take them one after the other. In the first place, let me take the woman's right to a pension as a widow. If she marries a man who is uninsured; if she marries a man who is crippled and cannot take his part; if she marries a man who
through no fault of hers drops out of insurance, she has no certainty whatever that she will in those cases get a widow's pension or that she will get a pension on behalf of her children. Again, if she is insured, and marries, and goes on with the insurance all her life, and dies before her husband, and the husband is not insured in the last few years, her children will not get the orphan's pension.
Supposing, again, she marries a man who is not insured for the whole of his life. If he is younger than her by two or three years the fact that she has paid her contributions up to the time of marriage—and it may be many years afterwards—or it may be that on her marriage, as is natural and the usual custom in the case of married people that the woman devotes her attention to the house the man earning the money outside and she drops out of insurance she does not get her old age pension at the age of 65 Therefore, though the woman is called upon to make certain contributions with the intention that certain risks shall be covered, as a matter of fact under the-Clause not one of these risks is absolutely assured of being covered in cases of the sort I have given. That is our objection to the Bill. It is not that binder this Clause or under the insurance each individual person does not get back the full amount he has paid in. It would be perfectly natural and a proper thing not to expect that. Our objection is this, that a woman entering the scheme and paying her contributions is not, as a matter of fact, insured against any one of the three risks for which she makes against which she insures.
It is perfectly true and perfectly simple that when the Division comes along there are those from whom the Minister will be assured of a sufficient majority to carry the Clause. It may very well be that while this Bill is going through the people of this country as a whole will not understand the minutiæ of this provision, and, therefore, will not make their protest. That is perfectly natural, but later when the Bill comes into operation as an Act and the effect of the actual provisions of the Act are being found out by the people called upon to come under it there will be a very considerable resentment amongst the women when they find the risks for which they are called upon to pay for a great many years are, as a
matter of fact, not covered under circumstances over which they have no control. I would only refer to one more point. I am dealing with the risks that the women consider they are by their contributions covering when they are not covered. Let me take one more illustration—the case of the spinster. Take the case of the girl who has gone on paying her contributions from 16 onwards and only gets a possible pension at 65. My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley pointed out that a large number of widows go on paying their contributions under the Insurance Act up to the age of 65.
The actuary's figures show that, whereas 57 per cent. of men continue to be insured up to 65 years of age, only 10 per cent. of women continue in insurance. It will be within the general knowledge of the Committee that a much larger proportion of women drop out of regular employment and, therefore, of health insurance before the age of 65, and all these women will not get any benefit at all from the provisions of this Bill. I think that is a very hard case. Those who do continue in up to 65, single women, do not get anything like adequate recompense for the money they have paid. Those who continue for, perhaps, 30, 35 or 40 years, and then drop out, get nothing, there is no reversionary value; all the money they have paid, as I understand it, goes for nothing at all. The right hon. Gentleman attempted to meet that by saying there is exactly the same hardship for bachelors. I do not think two wrongs make a right, but, even assuming that the risk which the bachelor runs is reasonable, the risk which the woman runs is very much less fair to her. As I have said, there is this discrepancy that, whereas 57 per cent. of men remain in employment up to 65, only 10 per cent. of women remain to that age. Then there is the further point that men are more likely to marry at a later age, and have more chance of having children in later years, and, therefore, more chance of obtaining the benefits under this Bill. I do not wish to make detailed arguments on this point, but I could illustrate them by a large number of cases of women who will suffer injustice. I am not making a speech to delay or obstruct
the Bill, and I do not elaborate the point in detail, but if the Minister will take these two points into consideration he will see what a large amount of injustice will be suffered by people who come under the Bill. Women who are called upon to make these payments will, if they do not marry, not get any equivalent value for the money they have contributed; and, whether they do marry or not, the risks against which they think they are being insured they are not covered against if certain circumstances arise over which they themselves have no control whatever.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: May I appeal to the Committee to allow us now to come to a decision on this Clause? We have been discussing it for nearly two hours, and I really think we have exhausted all the arguments and all the new points that can be brought up in connection with it.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I would like to meet the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman and I will speak for only two or three minutes. I must make an observation on the very important statement we have had from my right hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) that the Labour party intend to make this scheme non-contributory at the first opportunity. I was prepared to vote for the non-contributory principle as against the contributory principle, and if they propose to alter it, and I have the honour of being a Member ox the House, I shall support them then, and I am speaking also for a number of my Friends. But there will be very great difficulties on account of what I may call the vested interests, the insured interests we are now creating, because if after a few years we want to reverse the process it will De an extraordinarily difficult thing to fix the compensation to be paid to the people who have so far paid.
The position is extremely unsatisfactory. We are allowing the very wealthy classes of the community to escape altogether. There are successful barristers who employ only a few clerks, and, therefore, do not contribute much. Then there are novel writers, the "best sellers," or people who, by their horrible writings, manage to get their plays accepted at three or four theatres at
a time—those people do not directly employ labour at all, and pay nothing towards this scheme, while the man who puts on their plays has to pay in the case of all those whom he employs. The distributing trades are very prosperous on the whole—the retail dealers in provisions, clothing and the like are all doing very well, and they are let off very lightly. There are stockbrokers, too, and film stars, with their enormous salaries. [An HON MEMBER: "DO rot leave out journalists!"] All these classes, in addition to the so-called rentier class, practically escape. The whole principle of the contributory system is unjust, and I welcome the declaration made in such clear terms by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston.
I wish to put one point on another matter. I see that provision is made with regard to childless widows. I think a mistake has been made there, which I hope to deal with on a later Clause, but in the meantime I would like to ask the Minister whether he has considered the case of a woman who marries, not an old man—that is allowed for, she does not get a pension—but who marries a man who is sick and lives but a very short time. I have had a communication from the National Union of Societies for Equal Citizenship, who represent a body of very intelligent women who study these matters, and they declare? that their members feel there is a real danger here in the case of marriages with men who are on the point of dying—a marriage of convenience you may call it if you will. I think when a man is in extremely bad health there ought to be some time limit in the case of a woman who marries him. I hope that matter will be considered by the Minister before we finish with the Bill.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: I also do not want unduly to delay the Committee, but I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that he made hardly any reply at all to the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson), who dealt with what the Prime Minister has described as the "black spots" in our industrial life, and the effect upon those black spots of this Bill and of the Bill which is announced to-day, and which the Government says will help industry generally to bear the burdens of these pension proposals. It would be out of
order, I gather, to discuss the details of the Bill which has been laid before the House to-day, but in considering these pension proposals and their effect upon industry we must have some regard to he future of industry. The Minister of Health said just now that under the new Unemployment Insurance Bill there would be a reduction of the contributions from employers and employed which would result in all the great benefits, as he described them, of the Bill we are now discussing being obtained at the price of only 2d. from the employer and 2d. from the employé. What he failed to point out was that the contributions of the Government under the Bill which we are to discuss at a later date are only in relation to the deficiency period. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in introducing these pension proposals in his Budget speech, said he hoped to be able to assure industry that there would be no increased charge upon it when the deficiency period ended. I imagine that what is going to happen is this: If this Government stays in, or a similar Government comes in, we are going to have a pretty permanent level of unemployment in this country, and even though there is an improvement in the present position with regard to the deficiency in the fund of the Unemployment Insurance Act we shall never be in the position of being able to wipe out the other 2d. of the employers and the employed which is imposed at present to make up that deficiency in the Fund. What does that mean? It means that ultimately industry must face the permanent increased charge, not only for unemployment insurance, but also for the provisions for pensions under this Bill. The Minister, in his reply, held out no hope at all to our heavily burdened industries that they will be in a more favourable position than they were when we first began to discuss the Bill.
6.0 P.M.
I wish to add a special plea for "necessitous areas." Though I know the Minister of Health is probably tired of hearing those two words, we cannot separate the industrial position from the position of local authorities in necessitous areas. The very method adopted by the Government for bringing relief to industry, in respect of the contributions under this Pensions Bill, will lay an additional local burden upon industry in the most heavily burdened districts. I wish to put to him one or
two facts in connection with Sheffield. Last year the Unemployment Insurance Act, which the Government are now going to amend, brought considerable relief to Sheffield. By the shortening of the waiting period, the removal of the gap, and the making of uncovenanted benefit a statutory right of the unemployed, the local rates were saved something like £70,000. Under the (proposals of the Government to help industry to bear the burdens of these pensions, it is proposed to restore the waiting period and to remove the statutory right to un-covenanted benefit, and, instead, to give more discretion to the Minister. We are certain, as a result, to get a heavy increase of the charges upon the poor rate, and that will impose a serious additional burden upon industries in Sheffield. If the saving last year was as high as £70,000 in Sheffield, what must be the total figure for all the areas in the country? In addition, we have this year the gradually accentuated distress in the mining areas, where, during the last four or five months, unemployment has been steadily growing. The changes in unemployment insurance which are supposed to relieve industry of the charges for pensions will impose another heavy burden upon the local poor rates, and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman must realise he is not giving to industry all the relief that he would like us to believe he is giving. I am wondering whether the Minister could give us any idea of what he thinks will be saved as a whole. What will be the saving under the Unemployment Insurance Bill? What will be the additional charge upon the poor rate and, therefore, upon local industries, as a result of the changes in the Unemployment Insurance Bill? I am sure if he could give us those two figures he would see that he has not really come to the relief of the industrial black spots in such a way as to make this Pensions Bill really workable from the point of view of industry. I wish the right hon. Gentleman would give us a far more detailed and comforting reply upon this point.

Mr. BECKETT: What has happened is only what we might expect when the Government waste the whole night dis-
cussing these questions in Committee by refusing to give us the information we require. Now we come to the last part of the discussion of this Clause and for the first time we are in the position of knowing what it really means. When the right hon. Gentleman heard about the bombshell that would be waiting for him on his breakfast table this morning he concluded that he could afford to give us one or two minor concessions. For these reasons I confess that to-day I am able to speak about this Bill in a very different attitude to that which I adopted yesterday.
I represent a constituency which I have no doubt the Prime Minister would be ready to admit is one of the blackest of the black spots of the country as far as industry is concerned. Already we have the largest percentage of unemployed in the country, and the whole of the Tyne-side, which up to recent years was one of the busiest centres of industrial England, is now very quiet, and there are thousands of unemployed. Our shipyards are empty and contracts are being lost every day. We find that the miners and skilled engineers, the type of men who have built up the prosperity of this country, are now being driven to the guardians and the Labour Exchanges and they have no hope of finding employment. Our rates are so high that it is impossible for our shipyards to compete with the depreciated rate of exchange in foreign countries. Now we are told in addition to all this that the employers and workmen will have to pay so much every week out of their meagre wages and their scanty profits towards this new scheme.
I saw in the papers this morning a letter from an important organisation, the Federation of British Industries, complaining very bitterly about the damage the scheme was going to do to them. If you must have contributions, and you must, why go to the only two sections in this country who are worth considering at the present moment and tax them out of existence? Large employers of labour and the workpeople are the only people who matter in this country under the present) system of government, which is composed of landlords, rentiers and financiers. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO, no!"] You know it is quite true. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is not true!"] Many hon. Members
opposite representing large manufacturing interests are just as much opposed to this Bill as any hon. Friends of mine if they only had the courage to state their views. They know that this Bill is not only a ruinous proposition from the point of view of necessitous areas, but it is a serious and deadly blow being struck at British industries in the interests, not of the nation, but of the small and growing class of rentiers who are sucking the blood of the nation. I hope the Minister of Health will reconsider this very

serious proposal to exact contributions from the two sections which are the most important in our national life, while at the same time excusing from any contributions at all those sections which have nothing like the same burdens to bear.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 246; Noes, 147.

Division No. 233.]
AYES.
[6.8 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St. Marylebone)


Albery, Irving James
Cooper, A. Duff
Holt. Capt. H. P.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Cope, Major William
Homan, C. W. J.


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Hopkins, J. W. W.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Crook, C. W.
Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.)


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)


Astor, Viscountess
Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)


Atholl, Duchess of
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis


Atkinson, C.
Dalkeith, Earl of
Huntingfield, Lord


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Hurst, Gerald B.


Balniel, Lord
Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Jacob, A. E.


Barnsten, Major Sir Harry
Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Jephcott, A. R.


Beamish, Captain T. P. H.
Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Eden, Captain Anthony
Kindersley, Major G. M.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Edmondson, Major A. J.
King, Captain Henry Douglas


Bennett, A. J.
Edwards, John H. (Accrington)
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Elliot, Captain Walter E.
Knox, Sir Alfred


Berry, Sir George
Elveden, Viscount
Lane-Fox, Colonel George R.


Bethell, A.
England Colonel A.
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip


Betterton, Henry B.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)


Blundell, F. N.
Fielden, E. B.
Lougher, L.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Finburgh, S.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Fleming, D. P.
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman


Brass, Captain W.
Ford, P. J.
Lumley, L. R.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Forestier-Walker Sir L.
MacAndrew, Charles Glen


Briggs, J. Harold
Foxcroft Captain C. T.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Brittain, Sir Harry
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Galbraith J. F. W.
Macintyre, I.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Ganzoni Sir John
McLean, Major A.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Gates Percy
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Goff, Sir Park
Malone, Major P. B.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Gower Sir Robert
Marningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Grace, John
Margesson, Captain D.


Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.
Greene W. P. Crawford
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Guinness, Rt. Hon Walter E.
Meller, R. J.


Caine, Gordon Hall
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Meyer, Sir Frank


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hall, Lieut.-Col Sir F. (Dulwich)
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)
Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Hammersley S. S.
Moles, Thomas


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm., W.)
Hanbury C.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Chapman, Sir S.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Morrison, H. (Wills, Salisbury)


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Haslam, Henry C.
Murchison, C. K.


Chilcott, Sir Warden
Hawke, John Anthony
Nelson, Sir Frank


Christie, J. A.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxfd, Henley)
Neville, R. J.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)


Clarry, Reginald George
Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A.
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Nuttall, Ellis


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh


Cohen, Major J. Brunei
Hilton, Cecil
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. I. G.
Penny, Frederick George


Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Sanderson, Sir Frank
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Perring, William George
Sandon. Lord
Warrender, Sir Victor


Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl.(Renfrew, W.)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Pielou, D. P.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfst.)
Watts, Dr. T.


Power, Sir John Cecil
Skelton, A. N.
Wells, S. R.


Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Smith-Carington, Neville W,
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Preston, William
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dalrymple


Price, Major C. W. M.
Spender Clay, Colonel H.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Raine, W.
Sprot, Sir Alexander
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Ramsden, E.
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F.(Will'sden, E.)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Remer, J. R.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Remnant, Sir James
Strickland, Sir Gerald
Wolmer, Viscount


Rentoul, G. S.
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.
Womersley, W. J.


Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Wood, Rt. Hon. E. (York, W. R., Ripon)


Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).


Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Templeton, W. P.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Worthington Evans, HI. Hon. Sir L.


Salmon, Major I.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Wragg, Herbert


Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement



Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Sandeman, A. Stewart
Waddington, R.
Major Hennessy and Lord Stanley.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hardie, George D.
Rose, Frank H.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Harris, Percy A.
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Ammon, Charles George
Hastings, Sir Patrick
Scrymgeour, E.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hayday, Arthur
Sexton, James


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Baker, Walter
Hirst, G. H.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Barnes, A.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Sitch, Charles H.


Barr, J.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Smillie, Robert


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Briant, Frank
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Smith, H. B. Lees-(Keighley)


Broad, F. A.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Snell, Harry


Buchanan, G.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Cape, Thomas
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)


Charleton, H. C.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Stamford T. W.


Clowes, S.
Kelly, W. T.
Stephen, Campbell


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Kennedy, T.
Sutton, J. E.


Connolly, M.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Taylor, R. A.


Cove, W. G.
Kenyon, Barnet
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Kirkwood, D.
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)


Crawfurd, H. E.
Lansbury, George
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Dalton, Hugh
Lawson, John James
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lee, F.
Thurtle, E.


Day, Colonel Harry
Lowth, T.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Dennison, R.
Lunn, William
Varley, Frank B.


Duncan, C.
Mackinder, W.
Viant, S. P.


Dunnico, H.
MacLaron, Andrew
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Fenby, T. D.
March, S.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Forrest, W
Maxton, James
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Montague, Frederick
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Welsh, J. C.


Gibbins, Joseph
Murnin, H.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Gilliett, George M.
Naylor, T. E.
Whiteley, W.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Oliver, George Harold
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Owen, Major G.
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Greenall, T.
Palin, John Henry
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Paling, W.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W,
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Groves, T.
Ponsonby, Arthur
Windsor, Walter


Grundy, T. W.
Potts, John S.
Young, E. Hilton (Norwich)


Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)
Riley, Ben



Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Ritson, J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W. Bromwich)
Mr. Hayes and Mr. Warne.


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)

Question put accordingly, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 265; Noes, 126.

Division No. 234.]
AYES.
[6.15 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
McLean, Major A.


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Edwards, John H. (Accrington)
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-


Albery, Irving James
Elliot, Captain Walter E.
Malone, Major P. B.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Elveden, Viscount
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
England, Colonel A.
Margesson, Captain D.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.


Ashley Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Fenby, T. D.
Meller, R. J.


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Fielden, E. B.
Meyer, Sir Frank


Astor, Viscountess
Finburgh, S.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-


Atholl Duchess of
Fleming, D. P.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Atkinson, C.
Ford, P. J.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Balniel, Lord
Forrest, W.
Moles, Thomas


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Beamish, Captain T. P. H.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Ganzoni, Sir John
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Murchison, C. K.


Bennett, A. J.
Gates, Percy
Nelson, Sir Frank


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Goff, Sir Park
Neville, R. J.


Berry, Sir George
Gower, Sir Robert
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Bethell, A.
Grace, John
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld),


Betterton, Henry B.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Nuttall, Ellis


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh


Blundell, F. N.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Owen, Major G.


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Penny, Frederick George


Brass, Captain W.
Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Perring, William George


Briggs, J. Harold
Hammersley, S. S.
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Brittain, Sir Harry
Hanbury, C.
Pielou, D. P.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Harris, Percy A.
Power, Sir John Cecil


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Preston, William


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Haslam, Henry C.
Price, Major C. W. M.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Hawke, John Anthony
Raine, W.


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Henderson, Capt. R. R.(0xf'd, Henley)
Ramsden, E.


Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Remer, J. R.


Butt, Sir Alfred
Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A.
Remnant, Sir James


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Rentoul, G. S.


Caine, Gordon Hall
Herbert, S.(York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hilton, Cecil
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R.(Prtsmth. S.)
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Holt, Captain H. P.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Homan, C. W. J.
Salmon, Major I.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm., W.)
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Chapman, Sir S.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Chilcott, Sir Warden
Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.)
Sandon, Lord


Christie, J. A.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Hudson, R.S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl.(Renfrew, W).


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Sinclair. Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfast)


Clarry, Reginald George
Huntingfield, Lord
Skelton, A. N.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hurst, Gerald B.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Cohen, Major J. Brunei
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Spender Clay, Colonel H.


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Jacob, A. E.
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Jephcott, A. R.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Cooper, A. Duff
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Cope, Major William
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.
Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Strickland, Sir Gerald


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Crawfurd, H. E.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Crook, C. W.
Lane-Fox, Colonel George R.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Templeton, W. P.


Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lougher, L.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Davidson, J.(Hertfd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Waddington, R.


Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)
Lumley. L. R
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingstonon-Hull)


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
MacAndrew, Charles Glen
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Eden, Captain Anthony
Macintyre, Ian
Watts, Dr. T.




Wells, S. R.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.
Wise, Sir Fredric
Wragg, Herbert


White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple
Wolmer, Viscount
Young, E. Hilton (Norwich)


Wiggins, William Martin
Womersley, W. J.



Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)
Wood, Rt. Hon. E. (York, W. R., Ripon)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).
Major Sir Harry Barnston and


Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)
Major Hennessy.


Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.





NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hastings, Sir Patrick
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hayday, Arthur
Scrymgeour, E.


Ammon, Charles George
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Sexton, James


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hirst, G. H.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Baker, Walter
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Sitch, Charles H.


Barnes, A.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Barr, J.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Smillie, Robert


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Broad, F. A.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Buchanan, G.
Kelly, W. T.
Snell, Harry


Cape, Thomas
Kennedy, T.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Charleton, H. C.
Kirkwood, D.
Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)


Clowes, S.
Lansbury, George
Stamford, T. W.


Cluse, W. S.
Lawson, John James
Stephen, Campbell


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Lee, F.
Sutton, J. E.


Connolly, M.
Lowth, T.
Taylor, R. A.


Cove, W. G.
Lunn, William
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Dalton, Hugh
Mackinder, W.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
MacLaren, Andrew
Thurtle, E.


Day, Colonel Harry
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Dennison, R.
March, S.
Varley, Frank B.


Duncan, C.
Maxton, James
Viant, S. P.


Dunnico, H.
Montague, Frederick
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Gibbins, Joseph
Murnin, H.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Gillett, George M
Naylor, T. E.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Oliver, George Harold
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Palin, John Henry
Welsh, J. C.


Greenall, T.
Paling, W.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Whiteley, W.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Groves, T.
Potts, John S.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Grundy, T. W.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Riley, Ben
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)
Ritson, J.
Windsor, Walter


Hall, Fredk. (Yorks, Normanton)
Roberts. Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr, Tydvil)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)



Hardie, George D.
Rose. Frank H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Hayes and Mr. Warne.

CLAUSE 2.—(Meaning of "insured.")

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain FitzRoy): I shall not take either of the Amendments to Clause 2 on the Paper.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. R. DAVIES: On a point of Order. With reference to my Amendment—in page 2, line 17, after the word "requires," to insert the words
(a) the expression 'widow' includes a woman whose husband has for a period of six months after the commencement of this Act been unable to follow his employment on account of continuing physical disability so long as such disability prevents his return to employment—
I am not sufficiently conversant with the Rules of the House to know by what action it would be possible to bring an Amendment of this kind under discussion, but, if I am within the Rules of the House, I should very much like to be enlightened as to the reasons why this Amendment, which I regard as a very important one, is ruled out. Might I just explain that last night—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member cannot deal with his suggested Amendment on a point of Order. Under the Standing Orders I am not obliged to give any reason for not selecting an Amendment, but for the hon. Member's benefit I will tell him that it is not in order here, but should either be moved as an Amendment to Clause 43 or as a new Clause.

Mr. MARCH: Before Clause 2 is passed, I should like to be enlightened with regard to Sub-section (3), which is as follows:
An exempt person and a person engaged in an excepted employment shall be deemed to be insured for the purposes of this Act in the circumstances and to the extent mentioned in this Act.
In the case of a large number of councils, whose men would in the ordinary way come under National Health Insurance, they are not under National Health Insurance, having been exempted for a number of years. Those councils have provided from their funds extra benefits for their workpeople, for the purpose of meeting the requirements of the National Health Insurance Act, and, further, many of them have instituted superannuation funds. In some instances, the councils are paying towards the superannuation fund, and in other instances the workmen also are contributing. Does this Clause mean that even councils who are doing that are now compelled to pay contributions under this Act in respect of their workpeople? There are also those who are in excepted trades—trades which it was not thought advisable to bring in when the National Health Insurance Act was passed. Those people have been for a number of years excepted, whether they wanted to be or not, but I take it that now they will be brought in. Will they be brought in on a contributory basis only for the purpose of this Measure, or will they be brought in under the National Health Insurance Act as well? I should like to have a clear explanation with regard to these two points, because, if things happen in the way I think they will, it is going to be a very great hardship upon a number of councils who have gone out of their way to pay larger sickness benefits than the National Health Insurance Act ever contemplated, in order to comply with the conditions of exemption, and also on those who are in excepted trades.

Mr. DAVIES: The Committee has now reached what I regard as the second fundamental Clause of this Bill, not only in numerical order but in principle. Clause 2 settles the door through which persons shall enter into the scheme, and I think it will be well that the Committee should understand the situation right away. My hon. Friend the Member for South Poplar (Mr. March) has raised one serious issue already, and I want to
dwell upon another for a moment or two, if I may. The National Health Insurance Act, as consolidated in 1924, determined the meaning of the expression "insured person," and the Bill now before the Committee rests exclusively on the interpretation given in that consolidating Act. Let us see what is the meaning of an employed person, because it is only the compulsorily insured person who is entitled normally to fall within the National Health Insurance scheme. This is what the Schedule to the 1924 Act declares:
Employment in the United Kingdom under any contract of service or apprenticeship, written or oral, whether expressed or implied and whether the employed person is paid by the employer or some other person.
The scope of this Bill is therefore limited in a very narrow, circumscribed form, merely to those persons who fall within the National Health Insurance scheme, or who have at some time or other been within that scheme for two years and desire now to join as voluntary contributors. Any scheme which provides benefits of any kind whatever to which the State is a contributor is not a scheme that ought to pass this House unless it gives an opportunity to all the citizens within the State to come within its ambit. That is the principle I desire to lay down in anything I have to say on this Clause.
Let me deal first with the type of person who falls within the National Health Insurance scheme. You have the normal case of the man (or woman) who is under a contract of service and is paid wages or salary. He is compulsorily insured under the National Health Insurance Acts. A manual worker, irrespective of his wages—he may receive £3, £5, or £10, though it is very rarely that he gets more than £3 these days—is compulsorily insured for national health purposes, and consequently he will fall under this scheme automatically. The case I want to touch upon, however, is that of the clerk, or shop worker, whose wages are increased beyond the rate of £250 per annum, that is to say £4 16s. 2d. a week. That person automatically falls out from the National Health Insurance scheme unless, of course, he desires to become a voluntary contributor. Why should we have an anomaly of this kind? Here a a manual worker, say, for example, in receipt of £5 a week. His brother, a non-
manual worker, is in receipt of £4 16s. 6d., and merely because he is a non-manual worker he will be called upon, if he desires to come into the scheme at all to pay, not only his own quota, but the employer's contribution as well. When the State comes to the aid financially of any scheme which provides any cash benefit whatever, it should not distinguish in this way.
A fundamental objection I have to the Measure is, that in order to come under this scheme you must come through national health insurance. That is to say, if you want to secure an article you must buy two in order to get one. I think that is wrong in principle. It is like buying half-a-dozen articles in order to get a wedding ring. I do not want this Measure to be a cheapjack affair of that kind.
I know full well the difficulties there are in the way of separating the two schemes—I am too conversant with them —but it appears to me that this Bill shuts out many people who ought to come in. Let me mention some of them. The non-manual worker in receipt of over £250 per annum is definitely cut out unless he pays the employers' contributions as well as his own. Then there is another type of person, the person who is at present unemployed and uninsured. I am glad the Minister saw the error he made last evening and has gracefully apologised to-day. As a matter of fact, I have confirmed what I said last night and could now, if it were necessary, prove that this might happen. I think the case I am going to narrate is above all one that the Committee ought to take an interest in. It is the case of a man who fell unemployed, say, three years ago. He has been continuously unemployed. The approved society, in order to secure evidence that he is genuinely unemployed, writes the Employment Exchange, who say that, though the man has been unemployed for three years, he is not, within the definition of the rules and regulations of the Employment Exchanges, genuinely unemployed. Consequently, the approved society may rule him out at once, and he is no longer a member of the society; and merely because he has been unemployed for two or three years and the approved society rules him out under
the prolongation scheme, he does not come into this scheme at all until he returns to employment once again. I think that is a case the Minister ought to inquire further into.
I have not been satisfied at all on the position of what we term the Post Office deposit contributors, and I should like the Minister to make some statement. They are not many, but they are largely the rejects of the approved societies; people who have been expelled on account of breaking the rules of societies and those who have not been admitted into societies owing to a low physical standard and so forth. These people hand their cards through the Post Office, and all they get out in benefit is the exact amount which they have paid in. It is not an insurance proposition at all so far as they are concerned, even under the original scheme. That is to say, they put into a money box so much, and, when they fall ill or require maternity benefit, all they get out is the actual amount that has been paid in. Those people appear to me to be fit subjects of investigation by the Minister, and we ought to have a statement from him in their interest.
There is also another type of case. I always thought, when the Bill was introduced, that the Government were attempting, in a compassionate way, to do something for the widow; but for the life of me I cannot understand why there is not included in the Bill the case of women who are even worse off than if they were widows with children Take, for instance, the case of a woman whose husband is in a lunatic asylum—a woman with three or four children. Her condition is immensely worse than if she were a widow. She is rot included at all under the scheme. Then there are cases of husbands suffering from epilepsy, cancer, diabetes and diseases of a lingering kind If they are insured and drawing either sickness or disablement benefit from their approved societies, the women folk, who are to all intents and purposes, widows, will be ruled out under the terms of this Clause.
The door to this new scheme, as already stated, is through the National Health Insurance scheme. I want to ask the Minister what would happen in a case like this? The approved society, when it receives an application for membership form in respect of a boy or girl of 16, asks, "Are you, or have you been, suffer-
ing from any disease or physical infirmity?" That is a very natural question. But if the answer is in the affirmative and the person is suffering from spinal affliction or any of these wasting diseases, the approved society rejects the application, and the young person falls automatically to be dealt with as a deposit contributor. If the approved society rejects the applicant, as it must do in the very nature of the case, what becomes of him under this scheme? Is he ruled out merely because he is excluded from an Approved Society?

Sir K. WOOD: indicated dissent.

Mr. DAVIES: I shall be happy to receive information on the point. I wanted if possible to insert words in this Clause to include those people who are not included at present under the National Health Insurance scheme. I think that could be done. The difficulties will be many; but when the original Insurance Bill was discussed in 1911 the difficulties foreshadowed in that scheme were many more and 'greater than any which may arise under this scheme. In fact, this is a. very simple scheme in comparison with the ramifications of the National Health Insurance Acts. For instance, you have all the organisation of the National Health Insurance scheme at your hand, the collection of contributions will be a simple matter, and the whole trouble, so far as I am concerned, is that the most deserving cases of all will be shut out" from this Bill when in fact the intention, so far as I understood it, was to cover those very cases where compassion ought to be exercised by the State towards these poor people. It falls short in many other respects. It falls short not only in the amount of benefit payable, not only does it shut out people who ought to be in, but it falls short also in that it excludes the most deserving type of case which a scheme of this kind ought to cater for. I trust the Government even at this late stage will inquire not only into the question of the deposit contributor, but of those hundreds of people who every year are declined entry into approved societies, and who, I think, may be prohibited from entering this scheme on that account. All this looks very well on paper, but when the Act comes to be administered, I feel positive that the anomalies arising there from will be
such that whatever Government may be in power will be compelled to come along not once but may be twice in the next few years to amend this scheme on the lines that I have suggested. I trust the Committee will not lose sight of the points which I have raised, that the scheme is too circumscribed. It admits of only one door through which people can enter. I hope before this Clause leaves the Committee that hon. Members will agree with this declaration, that whenever the State calls upon the Treasury to finance any scheme of social insurance, the door to that scheme should be wide open for all its citizens who care to enter.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I look upon this Bill as a kind of Socialism. A hundred years ago it would have been called rank Socialism. That being the case, it ought to be made universal. It would have been very much better to go the whole way and bring everyone in the country under this scheme. A man may be rich to-day, but in a few years' time he may be poor and his widow and orphans may be left badly off. I know that this is a counsel of perfection and that there are great administrative difficulties. If we do not make the scheme universal, I think the Government should make it as wide as possible. The voluntary classes should be very much enlarged with, of course, an age limit, so that everyone who wishes to come into this scheme as a. voluntary contributor shall be encouraged to do so. The more people you can get in up to a certain age, the better. There are all sorts of classes who might be willing and glad to come into a scheme of this sort. As we get experience it will be necessary to amend the Act, and it may be that non-manual workers, clergy and people of that kind, would be glad to come into the scheme. The principle which the Government should adopt should be to leave the door open as wide as possible.

Sir H. SLESSER: This Clause limits the benefits and the obligations of insurance to a very confined number of people. It is true that they are a large number of people in the aggregate, but there are a larger number of people who are excluded from this Bill. The point I wish to make is a vital one. One of the great defects of this legislation is that it imposes by law upon a limited class of
subjects legal obligations which will not be imposed upon the rest. Insured persons within the meaning of this Clause, whether they wish it or not, will have to surrender a certain amount of wages for a certain benefit. Certain persons who are not within this particular Clause will be able, voluntarily, to choose for themselves whether or not this legal obligation shall be accepted. Outside those who may come into this Clause voluntarily there is a vast group who will be entirely free from this legislation.
We are embarking upon a very dangerous principle regarding the liberty of the subject, because we are getting away from the idea that legal obligations are applied with equal force to all citizens. Because by accident a person is employed in certain industries whereby the National Health Insurance Act applies to them, this Bill applies to them, with its obligations and its benefits. I think that system was vicious when it was introduced into the National Health Insurance scheme, but it is too late now to discuss that. The National Health Insurance scheme is now being extended to matters which have nothing to do with industry. Unlike unemployment, unlike disease which has been possibly contracted in industry, this scheme has nothing to do with industry. Therefore, we are in this position, that a, person who is over a certain income will be free to decide for himself whether he is going to be thrifty or not. He can be as thriftless as he likes. He need not insure. He is perfectly free to decide for himself whether his widow shall have a pension or not; but once you fall within the magic circle of poor persons and come within the National Health Insurance Act and this Act, your volition is taken away, an obligation is imposed by Statute, and the person affected has in a very real sense become of servile status. What I object to is, that you are introducing into this country a servile condition which muse end in a servile state. If we are to put obligations on people that they shall be thrifty if they are to receive benefit, then those obligations should apply to every citizen and not merely to one class because they happen to be poor.
I agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Com-
mander Kenworthy) that this is a kind of Socialism. It is a very bad and dangerous kind of Socialism, a sort of Socialism which will lead to what we are beginning to call a servile state. That is, all the compulsion of the State, all the power of the State, and all the wealth of the State is directed to the controlling of a certain limited class of citizens because they are poor. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health laughs. He must admit, because he is a lawyer, that that is so. The whole notion of the law of contract is that all citizens stand equal before the law. In this legislation that principle is no longer true. If you are over a certain income you can be as thriftless and as improvident as you like, but if you fall within the category of those who are poor you are bound by the State and by the law to have certain money deducted from your wages wherever you are employed. Therefore, in this legislation, by imposing these obligations, by providing these benefits, and by making special provision for people whom you think need it because they are poor, you are laying the foundations of a servile state.
If it be true that Socialism of a certain sort leads a man away from free contact to a dependent status, then there never has been introduced into this House a worse or more dangerous type of Socialism than the type of Socialism in this Bill. Hon. Members opposite who are apt to call us by a name which is not officially assumed by our party, that of the Socialist party, would do well to remember that they have taken the worst elements of Socialism and applied them in this Bill by imposing all the power of that bureaucracy and that tyranny and those legal obligations which we true Socialists would avoid by endowing people with a proper quantity of this world's goods, so that they can choose for themselves. It is time the party opposite knew where they stood in this matter. If they believe in the individualism which they so often preach, they would see that this Clause is a negation of individualism because it interferes with the liberty of the subject. If they say that this kind of Socialism is right which puts obligations upon the poor and leaves the rich free, then they are individualists when they are arguing
finance and Socialists of an extreme kind when they are imposing obligations upon the poor. Hon. Members are apt to lose sight of the fact that the obligations which are being imposed upon a limited number of persons under this Bill deprive them of liberty. That is only excusable if you put exactly the same obligations on every citizen, in the Kingdom, whether they be rich or poor, male or female.
Why should this matter end here? I can foresee the time when a Conscription Act in time of danger might be brought in only to apply to people who are covered by this legislation which we are now discussing, so that only persons with incomes of less than £160 a year will have to serve in the war. That may seem an extreme case. It is all in the line of the same vicious principle. Let us all bear these social obligations or let none of us bear them. Under the Education Act the school attendance officer does not call at the houses of the wealthy. The police are less attentive to the crimes which are being committed almost daily by people who are wealthy. They do not investigate and patrol the rich as they patrol the poor. In this Bill you have the principle laid down in law and not merely in practice of differentiation Whether anybody agrees with me or not, I must stand here and protest, as I shall continue to protest as long as I am a Member of this House, against legislation which imposes obligations, burdens, and responsibilities on one class and exempts other classes simply because they have sufficient money to enable them to escape the obligations.

Sir K. WOOD: Whether or not the ex-chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Snow-den) approves of the declarations made by members of his party on this subject I do not know. I do not know whether he approves of the announcement made by the late Minister of Health (Mr. Wheatley) that when the Labour party comes into office, as far as the continuation of this scheme is concerned, it will be non-contributory. Now we have it stated on the authority of the late Solicitor-General (Sir H. Slesser) that it is not to be compulsory.

Sir H. SLESSER: I said that, be it compulsory or not compulsory, everybody should be treated in the same way.

7.0 P.M.

Sir K. WOOD: I was only endeavouring to recall the phrase of the hon. Member when he spoke about a servile state. I should like to address myself to the more serious questions put to me, especially by the hon. Member for West Houghton (Mr. E. Davies). So far from the hon. Member for West Houghton thinking that this scheme imposes undue burdens and makes the people who are brought within its scope members of a servile class, he pleaded that more people should be permitted to come within the scope of the Bill and to receive the great benefits which the scheme will confer. I am not surprised at the hon. Member doing that I prophesied yesterday that most of the complaints directed against this Bill would be on behalf of those people who, unfortunately, through one reason or another, are shut out from it. The complaints will not be against the scheme, but because certain people cannot share in the benefits which the scheme gives. The real answer to my hon. Friend is this, that this scheme is linked up with the National Health Insurance scheme. I think the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer will agree with me in this, because I know he considered this scheme, that when you put forward a scheme for widows' and orphans' pensions you have got to link it up with some existing machinery or form new machinery altogether. Anyone who gives a moment's thought will agree that obviously it is convenient and much cheaper and in the long run brings bigger benefits, to link up with some existing organisation. We could, as the right hon. Gentleman said, have linked up the scheme with Unemployment Insurance. For reasons which I think may be obvious to the Committee, we considered that wholly undesirable, and one of the reasons why we did so was that by linking up this scheme with National Health Insurance you got within it the largest number of the industrial population to-day. I suppose there is no scheme which embraces so many of the industrial population as this widows' pensions scheme will do.
The hon. Member referred to Clause 2, and he confined himself to reading that part of the Clause which states that the expression "insured" may mean those people who are insured under the Health Insurance Act, but he omitted to
refer to what comes later on and which says
and in relation to any person who is deemed to be insured for the purpose of this Act.
These words have a very significant meaning. They cover not only the people already insured but the people who in other Clauses of the Bill which follow are deemed to have the insured status mentioned in the Bill. By that means, you bring in exempted persons under certain conditions and also under certain conditions persons in excepted employment. If hon. Members will refer to the Actuary's Report and will look at the two tables to which I referred the hon. Member for Middlesbrough to-day, in answer to a question, they can see that within one provision or other of the Bill a very great mass of the industrial population of this country will be able to enjoy the benefits of this Measure. You may say, "Oh, yes, but there are certain classes which are excepted." That is so, but we have endeavoured to meet their case, so far as we properly and legitimately can. Take the case of the small shopkeeper who does not come within the provisions of the National Health Insurance Act on the ground that he is not under contract of service. We have endeavoured so far as we can to meet his case. If the Committee will look at Clause 13 they will see there is a very wide door indeed which is open for other people to come within the provisions of this Measure. It is certainly the easiest method that I know of which permits a voluntary contributor to come into a Measure. If a small shopkeeper, as happens in many cases, has himself been employed in a business of which in later years he has become the proprietor, or if he acquires a business on his own account, and if 104 contributions have been paid in respect of him in insurable employment, then he has the option of coming within this scheme as a voluntary contributor.

Mr. R. DAVIES: Why the arbitrary 104 weeks when, in fact, there are thousands upon thousands of people who have passed through the National Insurance Act but who have not had continued membership of an approved society and have made less than 104 contributions?

Sir K. WOOD: I think I can appeal to all quarters of the House, that you must have some conditions. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Obviously, in connection with any scheme there must be some conditions as a protection for the scheme itself and the only conditions made here are very generous indeed. All they require—and I should state that this covers practically every one of the insured population—is that at some time or the other before, say, they had gone into business on their own account, they shall have been in insurance for two years and have paid 104 contributions. I venture to say that that is not an unreasonable or unfair obligation. At any rate, we shall be able to discuss it when we come to the Clause.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: There is the question of the clergy and curates.

Mr. SPENCER: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer this? Where a man goes into business, and his income is more than. £250 a year, will he be allowed in under these circumstances?

Sir K. WOOD: If he is otherwise qualified, yes. Under that condition, a very large number of other people will be able to obtain the benefits of this Bill.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: What about the clergy?

Sir K. WOOD: I am sorry. I will come to the clergy. It is true that, unless at some time or other some clergyman has, we will say, been occupied in the position of a clerk or has been under a contract of service and is able to claim the conditions of this Clause, he will not be able to become a voluntary contributor under the Clause. I am very sorry, but that condition must be made.

Sir PATRICK HASTINGS: I understood the hon. Gentleman to say that if a person had been insured for the period required by this Section, 104 weeks, and subsequently ceased to be insured and his income subsequently became increased over £250, he still would be able to become a voluntary contributor. Does the hon. Gentleman really mean that?

Sir K. WOOD: I thought that was so, and my hon. Friend has just made inquiries and confirmed it. Even if your income is over £250 a year, providing that some time or other you comply with
the conditions of this Clause, you can come in as a voluntary contributor, and, subject to the payment of contributions, you receive the benefits.

Mr. COVE: I know a very large number of people are interested in this point. I have not taken up the time of the Committee, and I want to be clear about it. What will they have to pay in order to come in as voluntary contributors?

Sir K. WOOD: That will be fully discussed on Clause 13. I shall confine myself to the questions that have been put. I want to say a word or two on the suggestions—and if I may say so, one is naturally sympathetic to them—made by my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton, who I know has had a very great deal of experience of these matters, that you should bring in as many of what you may call the wives and dependants of the incapacitated breadwinner, men in an asylum, or men who have broken down in health. Naturally, one is sympathetic to cases of this kind, but obviously a widows' and orphans' pension Bill is not the place to deal with them. If you want to make further provision for these cases, you have got to do it by means of an Amendment to the Workmen's Compensation Act, or by an Amendment to the National Health Insurance Act.
In connection with that, I should like the Committee to know the very remarkable facts in connection with national health insurance which have just been disclosed, and, so far from increasing the provision in respect of people who are incapacitated and entitled to benefit under that Measure, my hon. Friend will find that you can say, as the result of an inquiry into 4,000 valuations of approved societies, that actually in 75 per cent. of the cases it would be possible for the sickness benefit to be increased to 20s. per week and the disablement benefit to 10s. a week. That is a most remarkable and extraordinary state of things, so far as national health insurance is concerned, and we have to dismiss the suggestion which the hon. Member has made of bringing in that type of case. It is only fair to remember the very increased provision which is now about to be made by virtue of the very satisfactory state of our national insurance figures.
Then the hon. Gentleman put the case of the deposit contributor. The deposit contributor is an insured person within
the meaning of Clause 2. Therefore, so far as the case which my hon. Friend has put is concerned, there will be no difficulty, because, providing they satisfy the remaining conditions of the Bill, which will be discussed, they will be able to come within the Act because they are all insured persons within the meaning of national health insurance.

Mr. R. DAVIES: When the deposit contributor has exhausted all his funds from the Post Office, and falls out from the National Health Insurance Act, what is going to happen to him then?

Sir K. WOOD: I am afraid then he ceases to be an insured person. We ought to induce the very small number of these deposit contributors to become members of Approved Societies. In the very great majority of these cases, if they would only take a little trouble and exercise a little initiative on their own account, there would be no difficulty in their becoming members of Approved Societies. It is largely on account of their failure to take the ordinary precautions of life that they find themselves in that very unfortunate class, which, I am very glad to say, is a very small one indeed. As to the case of the employés of local authorities and how they would stand under their superannuation funds, I will only briefly indicate the reply at the present moment. The position is that an employé of a local authority excepted from National Health Insurance will be insured for widows' and orphans' pensions at proper rates of contributions. That means that at the reduced rates of contributions he will have, according to the terms of his employment, health and old age benefits as good as those under the National Health Insurance Act, and this Bill will confer upon him the benefit of widows' and orphans' pensions. In other words, where there are schemes of local authorities which give as good benefits as those given under the National Health Insurance they are excepted from the provisions of the Act. In those cases, under this scheme they will remain as they are, but they will come in for widows' and orphans' pensions at the appropriate contributions mentioned in the Schedule to this Bill. I have answered to the best of my ability the questions which have been put, and as we have a great deal of work to do, I
hope that the Committee will now let us have Clause 2.

Mr. SPENCER: The more elucidation we get of this Bill the greater the difficulties that arise. The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. R. Davies) has been trying to get from the Minister the reason why a person earning £4 16s. 6d. a week in a non-manual occupation is not allowed to come in, and the only answer was that he is not a person who is insurable under the Insurance Act. But in answer to questions put with regard to persons who have 104 stamps, and were in an insurable occupation and have gone into an occupation which is not insurable, we are told that if they now desire to come in it does not matter what they have got, even if they have £5,000 a year, they are entitled to come in. This appears to us to be making a very invidious distinction between citizens of the country. One would have thought it the desire of the Minister to get as many persons into this scheme as he could, so long as they complied with the financial requirements of the Bill making provision for these pensions. It seems to us that, instead of being actuated with that desire, the Government have devised a scheme which makes it as difficult as possible for many sections of deserving citizens to get into the Bill. Surely it is not too late for the Minister to consider the desirability of getting into the scheme as many people as possible. I dare say that the Minister would say that in some instances it would not be financially sound to take men in certain periods of their life. But it is conceivable that there may be a man between 40 and 50 years of age who has paid two years' contributions and has gone out of the scheme and now wishes to come back, and he will be entitled to come in while younger people will not be entitled to come in.
If anyone should be compelled to join the scheme at all, it is persons with incomes of over £250 a year, because if they are not running a risk and are not insuring against a risk surely it is most desirable that those people who enjoy this world's goods should be the people called on to make some sacrifice on behalf of those who are less fortunate. I cannot conceive why a person, even like myself, who may have an income of over £250
a year should not be asked to respond to the request to make some provision for those who might be less fortunate than himself. I cannot conceive that hon. Gentlemen opposite would have any objection even if Members of Parliament had been asked to make some contribution to a scheme of this kind, even though they knew that they would never get a single penny out of it. If there is a scheme of a compulsory character all should make some contribution. If we do not want the benefits when we reach the age of 60, and our widows and children do not want the benefits, so much the better for us, but that is no reason why we should not make a contribution to such a scheme as this.
The hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill made some comment with regard to the question of the servile State. He put certain questions to my right hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) on this point. In the matter of insurance the State makes the least contribution, and it assumes the right to impose what conditions it likes and the right to close the door or open it. I for one protest against the State assuming an authority of that kind. There are three partners in this scheme—the worker, the employer, and the State. The State, making the least contribution, assumes the right to impose what conditions it likes. I submit that if in a scheme of this character the State imposes what conditions it likes, it is not a kind of socialism, but an example of the worst kind of bureaucracy imaginable, and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would repudiate this as being a scheme of socialism, because, if it were a scheme of socialism, it would be of a contributory character, but the contribution would be one of service and not of money. When the State assumes the right to impose these conditions, I am sure, if the system were submitted to the men who are actually paying, it would be repudiated by them to-morrow.

Mr. VARLEY: I am sorry that I did not get in before the Parliamentary Secretary made his remarks, as he could have answered a question which I would like to put. I suppose that we are all expected to have read the Bill and analysed it and compared every Clause with every other Clause, and possibly with the provisions of the National
Health Insurance Act. But I would like to know if there is any special significance in the words "unless the context otherwise requires." All the comments on this particular Clause have had regard to its limited capacity, but I can conceive certain circumstances in which the Clause would be further limited by the application of these words. Are there in the Bill any particular Clauses

to which those words have special reference, and, if so, what are they?

The ATTORNEY - GENERAL (Sir Douglas Hogg): rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 241; Noes, 132.

Division No. 235.]
AYES.
[7.25 p.m.


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.
Huntingfield, Lord


Albery, Irving James
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Hurst, Gerald B.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Crook, C. W.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Jacob, A. E.


Ashley Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert
Jephcott, A. R.


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)


Atholl, Duchess of
Dalkeith, Earl of
King Captain Henry Douglas


Atkinson, C.
Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Knox, Sir Alfred


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip


Balniel, Lord
Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Little, Dr. E. Graham


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Dixey, A. C.
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Loder, J. de. V.


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Doyle, Sir N. Grattan
Looker, Herbert William


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Eden, Captain Anthony
Lougher, L.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman


Berry, Sir George
Edwards, John H. (Accrington)
Lumley, L. R.


Bethell, A.
Elliot, Captain Walter E.
MacAndrew, Charles Glen


Betterton. Henry B.
Elveden, Viscount
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
England, Colonel A.
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Macintyre, Ian


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Everard, W. Lindsay
McLean, Major A.


Blundell, F. N.
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Fielden, E. B.
Malone, Major P. B.


Brass, Captain W.
Finburgh, S.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Fleming, D. P.
Margesson, Captain D.


Briggs, J. Harold
Ford, P. J.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Meller, R. J.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Forrest, W.
Merriman, F. B.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Meyer, Sir Frank


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Buckingham, Sir H.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Ganzoni, Sir John
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Burman, J. B.
Gates, Percy
Moles, Thomas


Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.
Goff, Sir Park
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Grace, John
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)


Caine, Gordon Hall
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Murchison, C. K.


Campbell, E. T.
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol, N.)
Nelson, Sir Frank


Cassels, J. D.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Neville, R. J.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Hammersley, S. S.
Nuttall, Ellis


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Hanbury, C.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A.(Birm., W.)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Penny, Fredrick George


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Haslam, Henry C.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Chapman, Sir S.
Hawke, John Anthony
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Perring, William George


Chilcott, Sir Warden
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Christie, J. A.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Pielou, D. P.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A.
Power, Sir John Cecil


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Clarry, Reginald George
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Preston, William


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Holt, Capt. H. P.
Price, Major C. W. M.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Roman, C. W. J.
Raine, W.


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Ramsden, E.


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Remer, J. R.


Cooper, A. Duff
Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.)
Remnant, Sir James


Cope, Major William
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Rentoul, C. S.


Couper, J. B.
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Salmon, Major I.
Strickland, Sir Gerald
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.
Windsor-dive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Sandeman, A. Stewart
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Wise, Sir Fredric


Sanderson, Sir Frank
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Wolmer, Viscount


Sandon, Lord
Templeton, W. P.
Womersley, W. J.


Savery, S. S.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Wood, Rt. Hon. E. (York, W. R., Ripon)


Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).


Skelton, A. N.
Waddington, R.
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Smith Carington, Neville W.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Wragg, Herbert


Spender Clay, Colonel H.
Warrender, Sir Victor



Sprot, Sir Alexander
Waterhouse, Captain Charles
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)
Watts, Dr. T.
Captain Douglas Hacking and


Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Wells, S. R.
Mr. F. C. Thomson.


Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dalrymple



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hastings, Sir Patrick
Sexton, James


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hayday, Arthur
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hayes, John Henry
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Ammon, Charles George
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hirst, G. H.
Sitch, Charles H.


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Baker, Walter
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Smillie, Robert


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)


Barr, J.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Briant, Frank
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)


Broad, F. A.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Stamford, T. W.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Stephen, Campbell


Buchanan, G.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Sutton, J. E.


Cape, Thomas
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Taylor, R. A.


Charleton, H. C.
Kelly, W. T.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Clowes, S.
Kennedy, T.
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)


Clynes, Right Hon. John R.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Connolly, M.
Kenyon, Barnet
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Cove, W. G.
Kirk wood, D.
Thurtle, E.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lansbury, George
Tinker, John Joseph


Dalton, Hugh
Lawson, John James
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lee, F.
Varley, Frank B.


Day, Colonel Harry
Lowth, T.
Viant, S. P.


Dennison, R.
Lunn, William
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Duncan, C.
Mackinder, W.
Warne, G. H.


Dunnico, H.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
March, S.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Maxton, James
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Gillett, George M.
Montague, Frederick
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Murnin, H.
Welsh, J. C.


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Naylor, T. E.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Greenall, T.
Oliver, George Harold
Whiteley, W.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Palin, John Henry
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Paling, W.
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Groves, T.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Grundy, T. W.
Ponsonby, Arthur
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Potts, John S.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Hall, Fredk. (Yorks, Normanton)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Windsor, Walter


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Riley, Ben
Young, E. Hilton (Norwich)


Hardie, George D.
Ritson, J.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Harney, E. A.
Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)



Harris, Percy A.
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Mr. B. Smith and Mr. A. Barnes.

Question put accordingly, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 247; Noes, 126.

Division No. 236.]
AYES.
[7.35 p.m.


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Balniel, Lord
Blades, Sir George Rowland


Albery, Irving James
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Blundell, F. N.


Alexander, E. E (Leyton)
Barnett, Major Sir Rich
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Brass, Captain W.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Berry, Sir George
Briggs, J. Harold


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Bethell, A.
Brittain, Sir Harry


Atholl, Duchess of
Betterton, Henry B.
Brocklebank, C. E. R.


Atkinson, C
Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol, N.)
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert


Buckingham, Sir H.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Nuttall, Ellis


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh


Burman, J. B.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Penny, Frederick George


Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.
Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hammersley, S. S.
Perring, William George


Calne, Gordon Hall
Hanbury, C.
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Campbell, E. T.
Harney, E. A.
Pielou, D. P.


Cassels, J. D.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Power, Sir John Cecil


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Haslam, Henry. C.
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)
Hawke, John Anthony
Preston, William


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
price, Major C. W. M.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Raine, W.


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Ramsden, E.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. Birm. W.)
Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A.
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Remer, J. R.


Chapman, Sir S.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St. Marylebone)
Remnant, Sir James


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Holt, Capt. H. P.
Rentoul, G. S.


Chilcott, Sir Warden
Homan, C. W. J.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Christie, J. A.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Salmon, Major I.


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Clarry, Reginald George
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.)
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Cohen, Major J. Brunei
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Sandon, Lord


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Huntingfield, Lord
Savery, S. S.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Hurst, Gerald B.
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew. W)


Cooper, A. Duff
Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)
Skelton, A. N.


Couper, J. B.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Jacob, A. E.
Spender Clay, Colonel H.


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Jephcott, A. R.
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Crook, C. W.
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert
Knox, Sir Alfred
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Strickland, Sir Gerald


Dalkeith, Earl of
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Loder, J. de V.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)
Looker, Herbert William
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Lougher, L.
Templeton, W. P.


Dixey, A. C.
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harrnan
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Lumley, L. R.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Doyle, Sir N. Grattan
MacAndrew, Charles Glen
Waddington, R.


Eden, Captain Anthony
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Edwards, John H. (Accrington)
Macintyre, Ian
Warrender, Sir Victor


Elliot, Captain Walter E.
McLean, Major A.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Elveden, Viscount
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel
Watts, Dr. T.


England, Colonel A.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Wells, S. R.


Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Malone, Major P. B.
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dalrymple


Everard, W. Lindsay
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Margesson, Captain D.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Fielden, E. B.
Meller, R. J.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Finburgh, S.
Merriman, F. B.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Fleming, D. P.
Meyer, Sir Frank
Wise, Sir Fredric


Ford, P. J.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Wolmer, Viscount


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Womersley, W. J.


Forrest, W.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Wood, Rt. Hon. E. (York, W. R., Ripon)


Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Mitchell. Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Moles, Thomas
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Wragg, Herbert


Ganzoni, Sir John
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Young, E. Hilton (Norwich)


Gates, Percy
Murchison, C. K.



Goff, Sir Park
Nelson, Sir Frank
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:—


Grace, John
Neville, R. J.
Major Cope and Mr. F. C.


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Thomson.


Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Cape, Thomas


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Barr, J.
Charleton, H. C.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Clowes, S.


Ammon, Charles George
Briant, Frank
Cluse, W. S.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Broad, F. A.
Clynes, Right Hon. John R.


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Connolly, M.


Baker, Walter
Buchanan, G.
Cove, W. G.




Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Kennedy, T.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Dalton, Hugh
Kenyon, Barnet
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Kirkwood, D.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Day, Colonel Harry
Lansbury, George
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)


Dennison, R.
Lawson, John James
Stamford, T. W.


Duncan, C.
Lee, F.
Stephen, Campbell


Dunnico, H.
Lowth, T.
Sutton. J. E.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lunn, William
Taylor, R. A.


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Mackinder, W.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Gillett, George M.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
March, S.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Maxton, James
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Greenall, T.
Montague, Frederick
Thurtle, E.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Murnin, H.
Tinker, John Joseph


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Naylor, T. E.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Oliver, George Harold
Varley, Frank B.


Groves, T.
Palin, John Henry
Viant, S. P.


Grundy, T. W.
Paling, W.
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen.


Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Warne, G. H.


Hall, Fredk. (Yorks, Normanton)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D.(Rhondda)


Hardie, George D.
Potts, John S.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Harris, Percy A.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Riley, Ben
Welsh, J. C.


Hastings, Sir Patrick
Ritson, J.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Hayday, Arthur
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Whiteley, W.


Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Hirst, G. H.
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Sexton, James
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Windsor, Walter


Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Sitch, Charles, H.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.



Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Smillie, Robert
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Kelly, W. T.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Mr. Hayes and Mr. A. Barnes.

CLAUSE 3.—(Widows' pensions.)

Mr. GILLETT: I beg to move, in page 3, to leave out lines 1 to 12 inclusive.
The object of the Amendment is to raise the whole question why the granting of a pension to the widow of a man of 60 is refused. If a man reaches the age of 60 and he had married after 29th April of this year, except in certain cases, his widow is not entitled to receive a pension. There are exceptions. If there are children the widow would be entitled to a pension; and if the marriage lasts for five years she would be entitled to a pension. If the lady before her marriage had been a widow and had been receiving a pension, then she would be allowed to have it again on the death of the second husband. But the point is that if a man of 60 has been married since 29th April, his widow is not entitled to pension. Why is this limitation put into the Bill at all? In insurance, one naturally recognises that there are bad and good lives; that those who are paying are paying for certain things, while those responsible for providing the benefits have to take the bad with the good. If this man of 60 has been paying contributions—even though it may have been only for a short time—why should not his widow be allowed to receive the pension? I agree
that the period of the man's contributions may be short, but when a scheme of this kind is being started, there are many people who gain great advantages, though they may have made only small payments, and it is difficult to see why an exception should be made in these particular cases.
I can only think that the Minister is afraid that some kind of abuse may take place, and that a woman who is anxious to obtain a pension may, for example, influence some man who is only likely to live for a short time, and a marriage may take place, with the result that a pension may be imposed on the country. One must bear in mind that at present men with private property are liable to exactly the same sort of thing, and I cannot see how the Government are going to guard against anything of that kind. It is interesting to note the table in the actuary's report which sets out the ages of the wives of men of this age. According to that table, only 10 per cent. of the wives of men of 60 are themselves under the age of the husband. Therefore I cannot imagine that the Minister thinks he is dealing with any abuse which is manifest at the present time. It is evident he thinks that some form of abuse may spring up. That, for instance, a
nurse who has care of an invalid may go through a form of marriage with her patient simply in order to get the pension. The number of cases of that kind likely to occur seems to be so small, and the responsibility of the man is so great, that I think it is hardly worth the Government's while to put in a provision of this kind which only adds to the difficulties and uncertainties of the Measure. It will cause dissatisfaction, because, in most cases, the widow of a man who had been paying his contributions will be unaware that she is disentitled by this provision, until she comes to apply for the pension after the death of her husband. The only other reason for the provision which I can suggest is that the Minister considers that if a man marries at 60 it is a sign of failing mental powers, and that this Clause is a reflection upon anyone who does such a thing. I should have thought, however, that, allowing for the bad risks which one must take in insurance as well as the good, these lines might have been excluded from the Bill.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: In order to save the Amendment, which stands next on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Dalton) —in Clause 3, page 3, line 2, to leave out "sixty" and insert "seventy"—I shall put this Amendment in the following form: In Clause 3, page 3, lines I and 2, to leave out from the word "Provided" in line 1 to the word "sixty" in line 2.

Mr. OLIVER: I support the Amendment. It is a great pity that this Bill is being burdened by a number of ridiculous restrictions, and that the widow of a man, who has probably contributed during the whole of his life, because he dares to marry at or over the age of co, should, with certain exceptions, be denied the benefits for which the man has paid. This Bill, as I say, is burdened by a number of embarrassing restrictions, and the average man in the street will find it impossible to know exactly for what he is paying contributions. I trust the Committee will realise that this matter affects a large number of people, and if we are to have these pettifogging restrictions, the ordinary man will not understand the scheme for which he is called upon to pay. I hope the Attorney-General, who is, I under-
stand, to reply, will state in specific terms the grounds upon which this provision has been incorporated in the Bill.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I shall do my best to comply with the reasonable request which has just been made. The answer has been anticipated in the first of the two alternatives suggested by the Mover of the Amendment. This provision has been put in, not because the Minister intends to cast any reflection upon the mental powers of gentlemen of 60 who get married, but, as the hon. Member suspected, in order to guard against cases of abuse. The sort of case which the Government have in mind is this. There might be somebody over 60 years of age who desired, at the expense of the State, to provide for some young lady in whom he was interested, or who, on the other hand, might be induced by some young woman who was taking care of him, to provide for her by going through what is sometimes called a death-bed marriage, with the result that she would get 10s. a week for the rest of her life, and the State would be burdened with that liability. These restrictions have been described as ridiculous. That is the point which the Committee have to decide. If they be ridiculous, then naturally the Committee ought not to adopt them. If, on the other hand, as we hope to convince the Committee, they are proper and feasible, I hope the Committee will pass them into-law.
I would like the Committee to realise exactly what the provisions are. One does not wish any hon. Member to go away with the idea that the bulk of the people who marry at a mature age are, by reason of this restriction, unable to provide for the widows whom they may leave behind. In the first place, if there are any children of the marriage, quite-regardless of whether the children are alive when the man dies or not—if the marriage is fruitful at all—then automatically that removes the marriage from the area of the restriction, and entitles the widow to the pension. Obviously a marriage of that kind is a marriage in the full sense of the term, and in such cases the Government would not think it right that there should be any restriction, even though it might happen that the man died within a very short time after the marriage. Secondly,
there is the case where for a substantial time after the marriage—five years or more is the term suggested in the Clause—man and wife have lived together. Obviously these are cases to which the death-bed marriage theory could not apply. There is yet another class of case in regard to which there is no restriction. Those are cases where the husband dies quite soon after the marriage, it may be within a few days of the marriage, but where the lady herself was in receipt of a widow's pension immediately before the marriage. The reason why we brought in that third class is that, obviously, there could not be in such cases an instance of the abuse against which we desire to guard, because there would be no inducement to go through a second marriage for this purpose in the case of a lady already in receipt of a pension.
These provisions will safeguard what one may call cases of genuine marriage in the ordinary sense of the term and we hope they will be sufficient to achieve that purpose. We feel that it is necessary, in embarking upon a scheme of insurance of this character, to avoid cases of abuse which otherwise would certainly be liable to happen at the volition of the proposed widow or the proposed testator, if they could at their will, when the man was on the eve of death, provide a life long pension largely at the national expense by a ceremony of marriage, not intended to be anything more than a mockery of real marriage. We feel that was not the intention of this Bill, and that is not the sort of case which this Bill is designed to alleviate and to help. There is no argument for such a case, and therefore we are anxious to have a Clause which will protect the State against abuses of that kind, but we are also anxious to see that such protection does not operate harshly against anyone whose marriage has been a genuine and real union in the ordinary sense of the term.

Mr. MARCH: Why should the retrospective date be put in?

Mr. OLIVER: Would the Attorney-General's argument not apply to men of any age as well as to men of 60 or over?

8.0 P.M.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: I should like to explain how the alliance has taken
place by which I find myself supporting hon. Members opposite in this matter. I do it from a point of view which is the opposite to that expressed by the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Gillett) and the hon. Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Oliver). I wish to increase the restriction in the cases of those who do not require these pensions, and therefore I propose to remove the restriction from Clause 3, and put it into Clause 5. That is in substitution for the other Amendment of a graded scale that appears under my name. I do it at the instance of the body who more represent coordinated women's opinion on this subject than any other. The hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Gillett) and the hon. Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Oliver) suggested that this idea was trifling and negligible, and that there was no object in having safeguards against such abuses. I do not know what ladies they have consulted, but, surely, above all things, we ought to consult the bodies who represent women. The body who fought for the women's vote, and has since been formed into the National Union for Equal Citizenship, has recently issued a memorandum which is straight and to the point. It endorses every word the Attorney-General has said, only more so. There is a paragraph in the memorandum with the ominous heading, "To Prevent Husband Hunting." The paragraph says:
Matrimonial agencies will keep a sharp eye on men discharged from sanatoria or cancer hospitals. The nursing profession which has been complaining of its lack of recruits, may find itself confronted with a new class of entrants of the most undesirable quality.
And they give definite instances of formal marriages taking place in order to secure the supposed benefits under this Bill. You cannot get a stronger argument.

Mr. PALING: Are these taking place now?

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted; and 40 Members being present—

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: I was asked if there were any actual cases going on in anticipation of this Bill. Here is an actual instance. One member informed me she knew of a woman who, only last week, married a man suffering
from cancer with the well-understood purpose of qualifying for pension under the Bill. I think if hon. Members opposite have had anything like the experience of the other sex which I have had, which I think is quite possible, they will know of many instances in which marriages have taken place for some similar avowed purpose, and, certainly, those of us who know the way in which the nursing profession is used so often by miscreants of the other sex, who masquerade in the noblest of all the women's professions, know perfectly well there are cases frequently happening where the uniform is used in order to get into the intimacies of sick patients at the worst time. These are just the kind of cases where you may get marriages which will qualify for the pension, possibly for 50 or 60 years under this Bill, unless this proviso be inserted. I would only ask hon. Members to recall what happened during the War, and they will remember instances again and again of the same thing happening with young soldiers going out to the front. Most of the marriages were honourable in the highest degree, but, occasionally, very much to the contrary.
I only rose to ask this point of the Minister. If they make an exception for a man who marries at the age of 60, why not make it for a man who marries at 59? Those at the age of 53 or thereabouts are equally susceptible, and equally liable to be caught if required for the same purpose. The proviso which the Government have put in is limited to gentlemen of 60 and upwards. Why not protect gentlemen of an earlier age? The National Union for Equal Citizenship are keen, especially about the young designing husband-hunter, who, these ladies say, are a real danger and menace to our sex. We are at the mercy of the other sex, and if the other sex recognises it, we are bound to take serious note of this danger. Therefore, I suggest that this proviso be transferred to Clause 5 with one or two slight Amendments, which we could consider when we came to it, and that, therefore, this is not necessary to Clause 3. The limitation in Clause 33 being confined to men who marry over the age of 60, I propose to leave it out of this place, but only to endorse the view of the Government and to strengthen it, and. make it
applicable to poor, unprotected members of the male sex.

Mr. SPENCER: I would like to ask the Attorney-General where the abuse comes in, because, so far as I understand it, this is. a contract between several parties to provide a pension under certain conditions. Now if this Bill passes into law, it is conceivable that a man might have been paying for a widow's pension for 40 years. Let us assume that a man has been paying 40 years, and he has lived through that period a bachelor, but when 60, he decides to marry. Let us assume for a moment that it is some designing female who is trying to captivate him, and let us imagine that she succeeds. If she does, I submit to the Attorney-General that his description with regard to the pension is absolutely wrong. He said by doing this or that she will obtain a pension provided by the State. I challenge that. She will succeed in getting a pension for which the man himself has contracted and paid for. The State has made a certain contribution, but it has not made the whole of the contribution. The contribution will be jointly made by the man, by the employer and by the State, and, in so far as the man has contracted for that object, he has a perfect right, without any interference from the State, at 60 years of age to get married, and if he does, and dies after 60, within five years or any period, the widow is perfectly justified in demanding that a pension shall be paid to her, because her husband had contracted for it.
In the proviso there are other conditions, but for the life of me I cannot understand why there is a differentiation of nine months and five years. Can the Attorney-General tell us why that differentiation is made? It is conceivable that a man may, at 60 years of age, marry a young woman of 30, and at the end of nine months a child may be born. Immediately afterwards he may die, but because a child has been born within that period the woman is entitled to the pension, notwithstanding the fact that the child dies. But if there has been no child, then the duration is to be one of five years? Can he tell us why there is this distinction? Because we cannot really understand the sense, the logic or the reason of the discrimination. Whatever the Attorney-General may say, we stand by this fact, that, apart from any
benefits that may be derived under this Bill, the man himself has a legitimate right, and if he does marry even a designing young woman, she should have the right of the pension, because he himself has paid for it.

Mr. SEXTON: I do not profess to have much knowledge of the circumstances of this case, and I do not intend to make a speech. I simply want to remind the hon. Gentleman opposite that this is supposed to be a serious Legislative assembly, and not a comic opera.

Mr. LANSBURY: I will endeavour to take part in whichever my hon. Friend thinks the Assembly is. Yesterday, the Committee will remember, we devoted a great deal of time to the discussion of a proposition to admit certain privileges to a class of women that would be paying, or their husbands would be paying, into the Insurance Fund. Either the Attorney-General or the Minister of Health defended their action in not allowing the woman to participate, on the score that her payments had nothing to do with the provision for a pension, but that the man's did, and that the man's payments were for a pension. I cannot, for the life of me, understand why to-day he should argue that what a man has paid for, he should not have the power to do with it what he pleases. If the man possesses property, there is nothing in the law of Britain to prevent his marrying this designing female, about whom we hear so much, and leaving the whole of his property to her. No one can interfere with it at all, except some relatives who may brief very clever lawyers and employ very clever doctors to prove that the man was mentally unsound. Except for that, there is no power in British law to prevent a man doing what he likes with his own property I maintain that in this case the man would only be handing on something which is his to hand on. You have compelled Mm to pay in to the fund—that is not a voluntary business at all—and he has the right to deal with this matter, in my view, in whatever way he chooses, and you have no right to try to save money for the fund by imposing a restriction of this kind. Always, when there is an injustice going to be done, especially to helpless people, their morals are called in question. In this instance we have
had a picture painted by the hon. and gallant Member for St. Albans (Lieut.-Colonel Fremantle), to whom one gives way on matters of medicine, and surgery, and hygiene, and we have had a homily from him on the iniquity of certain women, who, during the War, did this, that, and the other, and who, to-day, abuse a very noble profession. Well, you do not get rid of that kind of thing by this kind of legislation. I think this is the worst possible method of trying to get rid of anything that is vicious or anything that is bad. I do not believe that there is a young woman who would dream of doing the sort of things that the hon. and gallant Gentleman talks about, merely for this paltry pittance of 10s. a week. I can quite understand that in the circles that he moves amongst, and I can quite understand that in the circles that hon. and right hon. Members all round here mix in, what is called high society, there is a proportion of people where there are huge properties and large sums of money at stake, and I admit right away that that does make an appeal to their cupidity, but I am speaking from my own experience of working people.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: May I correct the hon. Member? He said I was speaking from my experience. May I remind him that I was speaking from the experience of the National Union for Equal Citizenship, of women of all classes, representing women, and this is the letter from one of the chief social workers at the present time in this body, who says:
No one thought it any hardship to cut out childless women who had been married less than five years, and nearly everyone was agreed that the sordid marriage danger was a very real one.

Mr. LANSBURY: I am very sorry for those well-meaning, but very stupid, ladies who gather themselves together and pass such an idiotic resolution. It is sordid marriages that you are talking about. It is a matter of 10s. a week, and whether it is the hon. and gallant Member who is making the statement or a number of amiable and well-meaning, ladies who do not know what they are talking about, I do not mind. I have had to do with ladies and gentlemen who are always investigatting the poor for the poor's good, and I would improve them off the face of the earth. I think it would be a very good
day when the poor organised a charity organisation society to go and investigate how the poor rich live, and how they behave, and what they do with their money.

The CHAIRMAN: I would invite the hon. Member to keep to the Amendment before the Committee.

Mr. LANSBURY: The argument that has been put up by the Attorney-General and by the hon. and gallant Member of the medical profession opposite is that they must have this proviso in order to prevent poor women inveigling old gentlemen of my age—or, I should not say old gentlemen, but old men, of my age—to marry them, in order that they may choke them off and then get 10s. a week. I want to say that I, too, have had rather a lengthy experience of men and women.

Viscountess ASTOR: So have I.

Mr. LANSBURY: The Noble Lady has, too, but not quite so long as me yet, and that experience teaches me that you are legislating for an evil which is almost non-existent amongst the working people, and you have no business to insult them by putting in this sort of proviso. It is for that reason that I got up, and I want to say, about the whole of this business of trying to legislate in order to take care of the morals of the working class, that they do not need taking care of.

Viscountess ASTOR: rose—

Mr. LANSBURY: The Noble Lady is much too eager to interrupt.

Viscountess ASTOR: You are much too eager to condemn.

Mr. LANSBURY: I am much too eager to take notice of the Noble Lady, because I want to hear what she says, but the Noble Lady continually tells us that life is a matter of the spirit and not of the body. Very well, then, do not bother about laws for the poor. They do not want your laws, and they will live as decent and moral lives as others at the other end of London.

Viscountess ASTOR: Hear, hear!

The CHAIRMAN: I think we are going beyond the point.

Viscountess ASTOR: rose—

The CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley give way?

Mr. LANSBURY: Certainly, to a lady.

Viscountess ASTOR: I really think the hon. Member opposite is constantly talking as though we were trying to legislate for the poor. We are in this House of Commons to legislate for everybody. We do not divide people up into classes, but you, who are supposed to know so much about Christianity, are always doing it, and I resent this dividing up into classes.

The CHAIRMAN: I would point out to both hon. Members that a general disquisition about ethics is rather remote from the question before the Committee.

Mr. LANSBURY: But the whole of this is a question of ethics. The whole argument has been on the question of ethics, that the woman, designing, weak—

The CHAIRMAN: There appears to be a tendency to indulge in a discussion on comparative morality.

Mr. LANSBURY: My point was this, and I will, with your permission, Mr. Hope, make it quite quickly. It is that there is no law at present, and I have not heard of anyone bringing in a Bill, to deal with the well-to-do courtesan of the upper classes who is able to carry on in exactly the same manner as the hon. Gentleman opposite depicted, and who is able to get huge sums of money and property out of the people she victimises. If this were a Bill to prevent any woman of any class doing the thing you are proposing to do with the working class, I would not say a word about it. This legislation is all class legislation. It is nothing else than class legislation, and the reason why I got up to speak was because of what I considered to be the iniquitous speech of the Attorney-General and of the hon. and gallant Gentleman behind him. I stand here to say that the women of the working class and the men of the working class do not need such legislation as is involved in this Clause, and I hope very much that every Member on this side will not only vote, but will speak against it as an insult to the working people of the country.

Mr. BECKETT: May I add one word of very serious protest against the purpose of the part of the Clause which we
are endeavouring to get removed? The hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) rather aroused your ire, Mr. Hope, by discussing the ethics and morals of different classes of the community in reference to this Bill.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member did not rouse my ire, but possibly some hon. Members might affront my sense of relevance.

Mr. BECKETT: I accept the correction, Mr. Hope, and I am sorry I misinterpreted your feelings, but it is very important in all these Bills that there should be a much greater care taken not to discriminate, not to think about one section of the people of this country as people who must be legislated for, and of another section of the people of this country as people who are quite well able to look after themselves. I am sure that most Members on this side of the House quite appreciate the desire, if we sometimes deplore the method of expression of it, of hon. Members on the other side to improve the standard of public morality. We do, however, suggest that a much better way of doing that is by precept and example, not by passing Bills. I do not feel that the Bill we are discussing at the moment is one of setting up a particularly high standard of public morality. I should describe it, if I might, without offence as a Bill which does good by stealths—with the accent on the last word. It takes money from the unemployed at the present—

The CHAIRMAN: I would remind the hon. Gentleman that the question is as to leaving out a certain part of Sub-section (1) of the Clause. The question of the morality of the Bill will come better on the Third Reading.

Mr. BECKETT: I am sorry that I allowed myself to get away from the point that I wanted to make—that of combating the suggestion of dealing in the manner put forward with a very limited class of people. It is quite impossible to do that by means of legislation. Such legislation is merely calculated to arouse the very things mentioned, and which hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the Committee are endeavouring to meet. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down was asking the Government
if they would accept this Amendment because I think, according to the statements we have already heard from the Government side of the House, there is no very big financial question involved. Earlier in the discussion I produced an Amendment which I think had some reference to this subject, and we were told that as it was an insurance business, in which a certain part of the people by paying certain money could qualify, it was impossible to avoid hardship in certain cases of women quoted by the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson) which the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health admitted were hardships; but this, he said, was quite unavoidable. In the same way, if you are willing, for the sake of retaining the purely business side—with which we on this side are not so much impressed —but which is continually emphasised from the Government Front Bench, then surely, if you are not going to ease this business point for the sake of what the Government spokesman admits are real hardships, it is rather contradictory to put a Clause into the Bill dealing purely with insurance which people are going to pay for themselves, and the payment for which is to be taken from them in every way in which it can be thought of! It is rather peculiar for the Government to jib so suddenly at the Amendment. I hope the Government will not press their opposition to this Amendment. It will not cost them much money, and it would be a generous act and be an example which will be much better than the preaching that is consantly given by hon. and right hon. Members on the other side.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I rise for the purpose of making one or two observations. The first is with reference to the speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for St. Albans (Lieut.-Colonel Fremantle), which, I hope, I have misunderstood, and, secondly, I wish to speak on the proposal in the Bill. As I understood the statement made by the hon. and gallant Member in his speech, it was to the effect that in his experience many ladies used the garb of the nursing profession for purposes of prostitution.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: No! I was supporting the Amendment of hon. Members opposite. What the right hon. Gentleman suggests did not enter into my mind for a moment. All I said and
meant was that the nurse's uniform sometimes was used by women for purposes other than that of nursing.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I do not want to labour the point, but it was worth getting that out from the hon. and gallant Gentleman in the interests of an honourable profession. What the hon. and gallant Gentleman seems to have been turning over in his mind was the question of marriage; but not all nurses wish to capture simple old men for the purpose of getting a pension.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Excuse me. The right hon. Gentleman suggests that I put the matter in reference to prostitution. I neither thought nor said the thing, but I do say it is possible for women to be employed as guardians, housekeepers, and so on and so work for their own ends.

Mr. WHEATLEY: It is not my experience that nurses go into domestic concerns in the way suggested by the hon. and gallant Gentleman. He was rather thinking, I am quite sure, of the nursing profession when he spoke about the garb of nurses, at any rate perhaps he will allow me to say this: Having had 12 years' experience of local authorities and been a member of health committees, and acting for several years as chairman of a hospital committee, I was associated with the profession of nursing and with the nurses employed by large local authorities, and I have never in my experience come across a case where a nurse was suspected of having used her profession for anything but legitimate purposes.
In regard to the provisions of the Bill I think they are worthy of observation from another point of view. So far as I know—I have not the knowledge of the law professed by the Attorney-General— this is the first statutory matrimonial limitation to be arranged for the working classes or any other class in this country. It is thus a departure in policy of a very important character. It is a policy that may be extended. I think this provision of the Bill may be rightly regarded as a great triumph for those energetic people who are promoting birth control in this country. I can foresee the future when the insured section of this country, that is the working classes, numbering
probably two-thirds of the entire population, will, in order to suit the industrial requirements of insurance, require to get a permit to enter into matrimony.

The CHAIRMAN: The Sub-section we are discussing is as to whether the widow of a man who has attained the age of 60 at the date of marriage and so on, shall or shall not be entitled to a widow's pension. The matter raised by the right hon. Gentleman cannot be raised on the question before the Committee. The point that is before the Committee is a very small one.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I am sorry that you do not see the implication of this provision, but it is quite clear that the marriages contemplated are not, in the view of His Majesty's Government, marriages made in heaven. Quite clearly the Conservative party have got away from that old Christian view, and are down to the hard business of running this world on cruel, unadulterated, materialistic principles. I want to draw attention to one of the modifying sections of the Clause to which the Attorney-General drew attention. He said: "Oh, but we have taken all reasonable steps to limit its application. If a child should be born, even though it did not live"—perhaps the wicked people might be capable of pretending a child had been born—"then the marriage will be legalised for the purposes of this Act, and it will be recognised in Heaven as being a sacred ceremony." I do not want to follow up all the possibilities that arise, but I do submit that it is an unfair physical test to apply to a gentleman of 65 years of age who wants to provide for his widow. There are many other objections that could be raised to this proposal. I submit that it is a dangerous departure in legislation which is not warranted by the facts of the situation, and I appeal to the Government not to oppose the Amendment.

Miss WILKINSON: After listening to part of this discussion, I feel it is about time somebody took up the cudgels on behalf of the gentleman, aged 60. I cannot understand the attitude of the Government and their supporters in regarding it as something beyond all nature and quite horrible that a woman should want to marry a man at the age of 60. I want the right hon. Gentleman,
representing the Government, to look at his colleagues in the Government. There are there a number of gentlemen well over the prescribed age, such as the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and the First Lord of the Admiralty, and Lord Balfour, who is very well over that age. Would it be suggested that if a society lady honoured those gentlemen by marrying them—those of them who are not married already, that is—when they had reached this age that, therefore, she had committed some crime which put her outside the pale? If that is not the case with wealthy women and women of society and the elderly and charming colleagues of the right hon. Gentleman, may I ask why it should be considered a crime, resulting in a very severe fine, if a working woman marries a man aged 60 or over? Why should it be assumed that she is marrying him, not because she wants to but for the ulterior purpose of sitting at his breakfast table or by his bedside, hoping against hope that he will shortly shuffle off this mortal coil and leave her, not with the money that he is able to provide, but with this magnificent pension of 10s. a week. The whole idea is perfectly ridiculous. We have heard of ladies in the upper classes marrying men for their fortunes, or vice versa, but surely Members are not going to suggest that 10s. a week is a fortune. I ask the Minister of Health, who has supplied us with a great deal of very useful information, to add to it a little of the saving sense of humour if it is possible to have a sense of humour in a Parliamentary Bill. A man at 60 is considered perfectly capable of taking charge of the affairs of this country, of being an ornament to the Government, or of being an ornament to literary, philosophical, scientific, or other circles. Many a man has begun a parliamentary career at 60. After having had an honourable career in trade or commerce he has come into this House at 60 in order to take up a new career, and he has been regarded as one of the promising younger men of Parliament. The one thing this unfortunate man of 60 must not do is to contemplate asking a woman to share his glories with him—at least, it is perfectly all right to do that when he is an ornament to this House, but he must not do it, apparently, if he is a working man, though, quite likely,
he has been a widower for a number of years, has a house and furniture, and his children, grown up, have married and have left home. That a man in those circumstances, not wishing to be lonely, takes to himself a wife, seems to me a perfectly normal and an admirable proceeding. For the life of me I cannot see why a man who has thus provided himself with a wife should be penalised after he has paid into this insurance scheme for, perhaps, 46 years. He may have started at the age of 16, and, if so, by the time he reaches 60 he will have paid in for 46 years. During all that time he has been creating for himself a tremendous reserve in insurance, but because he marries at 60 he is to be told that all his payments are to be lost and that his wife, who may after all not be the designing young thing that the right hon. Gentleman envisages, but may be a woman of 55 or 56, is not to get the pension. His wife may be one of those women for whom I have been pleading all this afternoon. She may be a woman who herself started in insurance at 16 has been paying in for years and would, normally, get her pension when she came to 65; but she has fallen out of employment, say, at the age of 55; and when an honourable home and an honourable position are offered to her by a man of 60 not only does he lose all that he has paid in for 46 years but she is to lose all the payments she has paid in for 40 years. I appeal to the hon. Gentleman on this point because it is an unconscionable thing, and it is an injustice to which we have repeatedly drawn attention. I do not regard this as a joke. I mean it very seriously, and I think in putting so ridiculously a low age as 60 the Minister of Health renders himself liable to be called over the coals very strongly, and I feel sure that the independent working men of Birmingham will want to know why they should have this slur upon them because they have reached 60 years of age, whilst at 59 years and 11 months a man can make any contract in marriage which he likes, and take his bride to the altar knowing everything will be all right if anything happens to him. I suggest that it would be very much in the interests of the community if the right hon. Gentleman would accept this Amendment

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 218; Noes, 121.

Division No. 237.]
AYES.
[8.47 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Neville, R. J.


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Albery, Irving James
Everard, W. Lindsay
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Alexander. E. E. (Leyton)
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert


Alien, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Finburgh, S.
Nuttall, Ellis


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Fleming, D. P.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Ford, P. J.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Astor, Viscountess
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Penny, Frederick George


Atholl, Duchess of
Forrest, W.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Perring, William George


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Pielou, D. P.


Beamish, Captain T. P. H.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Power, Sir John Cecil


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Gates, Percy
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Berry, Sir George
Gower, Sir Robert
Preston, William


Bethell, A.
Grace, John
Price, Major C. W. M.


Betterton, Henry B.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Ramsden, E.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Grotrian, H. Brent
Rawson, Alfred Cooper


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol, N.)
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Remer, J. R.


Blundell, F. N.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Rentoul, G. S.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)
Rice, Sir Frederick


Brass, Captain W.
Hammersley, S. S.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Rye, F. G.


Briggs, J. Harold
Haslam, Henry C.
Salmon, Major I.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Sandon, Lord


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A.
Savery, S. S.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl.(Renfrew, W.)


Burman, J. B.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Shaw, Capt. W. W (Wilts, Westb'y)


Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfst)


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Skelton, A. N.


Caine, Gordon Hall
Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Cassels, J. D.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Spender Clay, Colonel H.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)
Huntingfield, Lord
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Chapman, Sir S.
Jacob, A. E.
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Jephcott, A. R.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Christie, J. A.
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Sugden, Sir Wilfred


Clarry, Reginald George
Knox, Sir Alfred
Templeton, W. P.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Cohen, Major J. Brunei
Loder, J. de V.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Looker, Herbert William
Waddington, R.


Cooper, A. Duff
Lougher, L.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Cope, Major William
Lynn, Sir R. J.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Couper, J. B.
MacAndrew, Charles Glen
Warrender, Sir Victor


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Watts, Dr. T.


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Macintyre, Ian
Wells, S. R.


Crook, C. W.
McLean, Major A.
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dalrymple


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Crookshank. Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Margesson, Captain D.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Dalkeith, Earl of
Meller, R. J.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Merriman, F. B.
Wolmer, Viscount


Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Womersley, W. J.


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Mitchell, S. (Lanark)
Wood, Rt. Hon. E. (York, W. R., Ripon)


Dean. Arthur Wellesley
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).


Dixey, A. C.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Doyle, Sir N. Grattan
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Wragg, Herbert


Edmonson, Major A. J.
Moore, Lieut. Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)



Edwards, John H. (Accrington)
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Elliot, Captain Walter E.
Murchison, C. K.
Mr. F. C. Thomson and Lord


England, Colonel A.
Nelson, Sir Frank
Stanley.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Ammon, Charles George
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Attlee, Clement Richard
Barnes, A.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Baker, J. (Wolverhamton, Bilston)
Barr, J.


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Broad, F. A.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Smillie, Robert


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Buchanan, G.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Cape, Thomas
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Charleton, H. C.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Clowes, S.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)


Cluse, W. S.
Kelly, W. T.
Stamford, T. W.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Kennedy, T.
Stephen, Campbell


Connolly, M.
Kenyon, Barnet
Sutton, J. E.


Cove, W. G.
Lansbury, George
Taylor, R. A.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lawson, John James
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Dalton, Hugh
Lee, F.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lowth, T.
Thurtle, E.


Dennison, R.
Lunn, William
Tinker, John Joseph


Duncan, C.
Mackinder, W.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Dunnico, H.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Varley, Frank B.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
March, S.
Viant, S. P.


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Montague, Frederick
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Gillett. George M.
Murnin, H.
Warne, G. H.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Naylor, T. E.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Oliver, George Harold
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Greenall, T.
Palin, John Henry
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Paling, W.
Welsh, J. C.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Whiteley, W.


Groves, T.
Potts, John S.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Grundy, T. W.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Riley, Ben
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Hall, Fredk. (Yorks, Normanton)
Ritson, J.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Wilson, C. H. (Shelfield, Attercliffe)


Hardie, George D.
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Saklatvala, Shapurji
Windsor, Walter


Hayday, Arthur
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Sexton, James



Hirst, G. H.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.


Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Hayes.


Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Sitch, Charles, H.

Question put accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'sixty' in page 3, line 2, stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 230; Noes, 118.

Division No. 238.]
AYES.
[8.57 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir, James T.
Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Edwards, John H. (Accrington)


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Caine, Gordon Hall
Elliot, Captain Walter E.


Albery, Irving James
Cassels, J. D.
Elveden, Viscount


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
England, Colonel A.


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R.(Prtsmth. S.)
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)


Ashley, Lt.-Col Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Everard, W. Lindsay


Astor, Viscountess
Chapman, Sir S.
Fairfax, Captain J G.


Atholl, Duchess of
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Fermoy, Lord


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Christie, J. A.
Finburgh, S.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Clarry, Reginald George
Fleming, D. P.


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Ford, P. J.


Beamish, Captain T. P. H.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Cohen, Major J. Brunei
Forrest, W.


Berry, Sir George
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.


Bethell, A.
Cooper, A. Duff
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.


Betterton, Henry B.
Cope, Major William
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Couper, J. B.
Galbraith, J. F. W.


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Ganzoni, Sir John


Hades, Sir George Rowland
Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.
Gates, Percy


Blundell, F. N.
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Gower, Sir Robert


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Crook, C. W.
Grace, John


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Greene, W. P. Crawford


Brass, Captain W.
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Grotrian, H. Brent


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol, N.)


Briggs, J. Harold
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)
Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Hammersley, S. S.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Dixey, A. C.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Bull, Rt. Hon,. Sir William James
Doyle, Sir N. Grattan
Haslam, Henry C.


Burman, J. B.
Eden, Captain Anthony
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)


Burney, Lieut.-Com Charles D.
Edmonson, Major A. J.
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.


Henn, Sir Sydney H
Mitchell, S. (Lanark)
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)


Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Sinclair, Col. T.(Queen's Univ., Belfst)


Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Skelton, A. N.


Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Holt, Capt. H. P.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Smithers, Waldron


Homan, C. W. J.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Murchison, C. K.
Spender Clay, Colonel H.


Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Nelson, Sir Frank
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Neville, R. J.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Stott, Lieut. Colon I. W. H.


Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.)
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Nuttall, Ellis
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Huntingfield, Lord
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Sugden, Sir Wilfred


Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Templeton, W. P.


Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Penny, Frederick George
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Jacob, A. E.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Jephcott, A. R.
Perring, William George
Waddington, R.


Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Pielou, D. P.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


King, Captain Henry Douglas
Power, Sir John Cecil
Warrender, Sir Victor


Knox, Sir Alfred
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Preston, William
Watts, Dr. T.


Little, Dr. E. Graham
Price, Major C. W. M.
Wells, S. R.


Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Ramsden, E.
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple


Loder, J. de V.
Rawson, Alfred Cooper
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Looker, Herbert William
Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Lougher, L.
Remer, J. R.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Lynn, Sir R. J.
Rentoul, G. S.
Windsor-dive, Lieut.-Colonel George


MacAndrew, Charles Glen
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Winter-ton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Rice, Sir Frederick
Wise, Sir Fredric


McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Wolmer, Viscount


Macintyre, I.
Rye, F. G.
Womersley, W. J.


McLean, Major A.
Salmon, Major I.
Wood. Rt. Hon. E. (York, W. R., Ripon)


Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).


Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Sandeman, A. Stewart
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Sandon, Lord
Wragg, Herbert


Margesson, Captain D.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.



Meller, R. J.
Savery, S. S.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Merriman, F. B.
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)
Mr. F. C. Thomson and Lord Stanley.


Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl.(Renfrew, W.)



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hardie, George D.
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Ammon, Charles George
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hayday, Arthur
Sexton, James


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hirst, G. H.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Barnes, A.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Barr, J.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Sitch, Charles, H.


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Broad, F. A.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Smillie, Robert


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Buchanan, G.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Cape, Thomas
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Charleton, H. C.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Clowes, S.
Kelly, W. T.
Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)


Cluse, W. S.
Kennedy, T.
Stamford, T. W.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Kenyon, Barnet
Stephen, Campbell


Connolly, M.
Lansbury, George
Sutton, J. E.


Cove, W. G.
Lawson, John James
Taylor, R. A.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lee, F.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Dalton, Hugh
Lowth, T.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lunn, William
Thurtle, E.


Dennison, R.
Mackinder, W.
Tinker, John Joseph


Duncan, C.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Dunnico, H.
March, S.
Varley, Frank B.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Montague, Frederick
Viant, S. P.


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Murnin, H.
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Gillett, George M.
Naylor, T. E.
Warne, G. H.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Oliver, George Harold
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent)
Palin, John Henry
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Greenall, T.
Paling, W.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Welsh, J. C.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Potts, John S.
Whiteley, W.


Groves, T.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Grundy, T. W.
Riley, Ben
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Ritson, J.
Williams. T. (York, Don Valley)




Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Windsor, Walter
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Mr. Hayes and Mr. Allen




Parkinson.

Mr. RILEY: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

The CHAIRMAN: That is not a Motion I can accept under the circumstances.

Mr. LANSBURY: On a point of Order. On the two last Amendments Ministers have simply refused to answer questions. On the Amendment before the last a perfectly simple question was asked in a most respectful manner of the Attorney-General, and he answered it by moving the Closure. On the last occasion we had a two-minute speech from the Attorney-General. We know they are as tired as we are. [Interruption.] All right, they are not tired. I must say something else.

The CHAIRMAN: Is the hon. Member putting me a point of Order?

Mr. LANSBURY: The point of Order is, Ought we not under these circumstances to be allowed to move to report Progress, in order to show our disgust with the manner in which we are treated?

The CHAIRMAN: Considering all the circumstances of the occasion, my answer is in the negative

Mr. BECKETT: Has the Committee no remedy when a Minister refuses to deal with the Debate and turns it into an automatic penny-in-the-slot procedure?

Mr. DALTON: I beg to move, in page 3, line 2, to leave out the word "sixty" and to insert instead thereof the word "seventy."
The last vote has, of course, disposed of the proposal to omit altogether the restrictions contained in the first part of the Clause. My Amendment is a very narrow one which might well be adopted as a compromise between the very sweeping restrictions imposed in the Clause and the proposal which has just been rejected. It simply proposes to substitute 70 for 60 years as the age at which what the Attorney-General calls death-bed marriages may be presumed. I am hopeful that since the Minister of Health and the Parliamentary Secretary are here we shall receive some consideration for the Amendment and shall not simply be met
by a Closure Motion, as tends to be the procedure when the Attorney-General is left in charge of the business. The age at which a death-bed marriage, as it has been called, can be presumed is a very material point in the whole argument, and I should like to draw attention to another feature in connection with the Bill and the Actuaries' Report on which it is based, namely, the increasing span of life which we may now look forward to and the very large increase which is anticipated in the old age pension charge in future, which of course indicates, among other things, that the age of human life is increasing. As a result of the many developments in medical science and in other directions we can now look forward to living to a considerably greater age than our grandfathers were able to do, and also to retaining our mental and bodily vigour to a greater age than was previously to he hoped for, and so far as that is so it is reasonable to suggest that the date at which it is proposed to impose this restriction should be increased.
In these days 60 is altogether too early an age at which to attribute improper motives to those who marry persons of that age. There are, of course, two possibilities in the case. There is the case of the so-called young woman who marries an elderly man, and the case of the comparatively elderly woman. With regard to the young woman, many cases must be known to us in our own experience where such a marriage is due not at all to reprehensible motives, but to kindly relations having developed because a young woman has nursed an elderly man and desires to comfort his declining years, and it seems to me that women who in that way offer themselves upon the altar of a sense of duty should not be debarred from any small benefits which are in any case attainable on the death of their husbands. It might be argued that they should rather be rewarded for gallantry and public spirit than penalised for any improper conduct. In the case of the elderly woman, roughly of the same age as the man, there, it may be presumed, in the majority of cases, that the marriage takes-place in the ordinary course of natura1
affection, and where there is no great gap of years between the two parties there is all the less reason to suppose that the motives of the woman are reprehensible, in addition to which, of course, as was argued on the last Amendment, and since my hon. Friends and myself have been conducting the Debate without any undue repetition but simply with a desire to bring fresh points of view before Ministers—

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member now is resuming the Debate on the general question. He makes the most apposite remarks about the prolongation of human life, and, so far, his remarks are in order, but it seems now that he is diverging into generalisation.

Mr. DALTON: I simply wish to recall this general argument, that these men, whose widows it is proposed should not receive pensions, after all have paid for the benefits which in the ordinary course of nature their widows would receive on their death. That argument is just as applicable to this narrower Amendment as it was to the wider Amendment. I do not develop it in detail, but I bring it once more to the notice of the Minister of Health as a consideration in favour of the Amendment. The Committee, having rejected the wider proposal, it appears to me that this Amendment would affect a comparatively small number of persons, that its cost would be comparatively small, but that it would do something to remove a feature of the Bill which is a stigma upon certain sections of the community, and I feel that the Minister, without adding anything appreciable to the cost of the Bill, might well consent to accept it as a compromise between the view which has been put from these benches and that which has been put from the opposite side.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment. The new point the hon. Member has put forward in support of his argument is that the span of human life has so much increased that it is reasonable to raise the limit of age from 60 to 70 years. Of course, we have drafted the Bill in the light of such information as we have about the present expectation of life, but by paragraph (b), at the date of the death of the husband, if five years have elapsed since the date of the marriage, the widow
would be entitled to Her pension, so that the argument that the man is likely to live longer than we think is really an additional safeguard for the widow under that paragraph. We are not attributing motives to anyone. I simply want to put before the Committee what might happen without suggesting any motive on the part of anyone. It is true the hon. Member illustrated his case by suggesting that you might have a man who was infirm and had been nursed by a young woman who sacrificed something of her own comfort and leisure to look after him. It seems to me it is quite possible that the man in these circumstances might desire to show his gratitude to the young woman by marrying her and thereby giving her a chance of succeeding to a pension for life and an earlier old age pension at the age of 65. It is unreasonable to suggest that the man who has already been in enjoyment of an old age pension for upwards of five years should be put in such a position that he could put this additional burden upon the scheme. The hon. Member thinks it would not cost a lot of money. It would be impossible to say how much money it would cost, because nobody can tell how many of these marriages may take place. It is quite fair to say that the inducement to show gratitude or affection, or anything else you like, to a young woman might be very strong in the case of an old man, but in that case it would almost inevitably provoke scandals which would throw discredit upon the whole scheme. I feel that we must not have scandals of that kind arising. I think the proposition in the Bill is a very reasonable one and one which ought to be accepted by the Committee.

Mr. J. JONES: There are plenty of people who tell us how we can prolong life by various medicinal and other methods, but we are now told that at 60 a man is finished. That is practically the result of the proposition made by the Government. The Amendment simply asks that, as far as the workers who are coming under this Bill are concerned, at 60 years of age they shall have the same right as other sections of the community, because they have paid up to an age when they are qualified under the Act for all the benefits which they are likely to receive. Most of
them will pay for what they will never receive. We are asking that the age of 70, the biblical terms of three score years and ten, should be recognised by this Government of God-fearing Christian gentlemen. There are Members of this House, ex-Cabinet Ministers, who get married at 75 and hand their pensions over to their widows when they have finished. What is good enough for the ex-Cabinet Minister is not good enough for the ex-cabinet maker.
We ask that a man shall have the right of handing on to his wife the legal rights to qualify either at 65 or at 60. There is no argument against that, except expense. How much is it going to cost? The Minister of Health does not suggest anything. All he suggests in the latter part of his speech is that, as far as the workers are concerned, they are as a rule not so moral as the section of the community to which he belongs, because they are going to get married for convenience and for the sake of 10s. a week. I only wish the worker was clever enough to be able to do that as successfully as the people on the opposite side. We are only asking that the age shall be recognised at 60 because most workers finish at 60. They are too old to work at 45 as a rule, and too young for a pension at 60. When the War was on it was different. My own father-in-law was sent for to go back to work at 75, although he had been finished for 15 years. You wanted men then. You want votes now. You talk about economy.
What are you going to say about the restrictions put upon these people when they have paid all their lives. If they do not pay in direct contributions they are paying, in labour. We say that 60 should be the age when a man should have the right of handing on to his wife the opportunity of enjoying the pension which he has worked for all his life. In our class we do not get married at that age. We begin early and finish quicker. The other section of society begin at the other end. They get married at an age when most of our people have brought up families. Even members of the Royal family do not think of getting married until they have sown all their wild oats. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!"] We have no oats to sow. I am telling the truth. The average age of marriage in
your class is 35, and the average age of marriage in my class is 21. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because they cannot afford to keep on waiting; because the pleasure of life will have departed before they are qualified to enjoy it. Therefore, we have to begin quick and finish soon. We ask that the last privilege left to us in human life shall not be denied us, and that instead of depriving us of benefits you should reduce the age from 70 to 60.

Mr. D. GRENFELL: I wish to call attention to the very embarrassing and unfair limitations which the House is going to place upon a section of the people. The more we debate this Bill, the more we find that the limitations increase and the more we find unsuspected cases of widows who do not come within the benefits of the Bill. Here we find a limitation which has no justification. It is simply an attempt to introduce a social penalty into a piece of legislation that is not designed to deal with the morals of the people. The object of the Amendment is to deal with some of the limitations of the Bill and to make the benefits available for a larger number of widows who have been led to expect pensions upon the death of their husbands. The benefits are contributory. That is a limitation which cannot be defended by any appeal to morals. There is no justification, morally, for denying to one widow whose husband may not have contributed a benefit that is given to another widow.

The CHAIRMAN: I would remind the hon. Member that we are discussing the question of 60 or 70.

Mr. GRENFELL: Here is a limitation of which the Committee was not aware until we began to discuss the effects of previous Amendments. We find four conditions which a widow who marries a man at the age of 60 has to satisfy before she comes within the scope of the. Bill. First of all, there must be children born of the marriage. Secondly, the duration of the marriage must be at least five years. Thirdly, the widow must have been a widow before the marriage of her recently deceased husband.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The conditions to which the hon. Member refers are not cumulative but alternative.

Mr. GRENFELL: The first condition is where the husband is over 60 years of age. Then there are three limitations which the widow is given an opportunity of satisfying in order to qualify for benefit. There is no moral justification for refusing benefit to a widow simply because the husband may have reached the age of 60 before marriage. Take the case of a man who may have contributed towards National Health Insurance from 1911 up to now, that is, 14 years. He is 60 years of age. He may have married a woman of 40 or 45 years of age. There are no children of the marriage. The man dies four years after the marriage, and this woman of 45 years of age is left without a pension because she married a man who was 60 years of age at the time of the marriage. She is penalised because she accepted the risk of marrying a man of that age. Some of the best marriages and the most blessed marriages I have known have taken place between people of fairly advanced years. Here is a man of 60 years of age, of good health, who works every day, with expectations of 10 years of health or even longer, and because he may have been a day or two over the age of 60 when the marriage took place the widow is penalised as compared with the woman who marries a man of 59. This is a disqualification that could not be defended. There is no room in the Bill for the kind of censorious argument that is directed against the working people and against no other class.
Something has been said about nurses in institutions that may connive with men who are expecting death to arrange a marriage, so that the nurse should get the benefit of a pension. If she is a nurse she is in employment and she is brought under this Bill. She will be called upon to pay, and she will be getting what she has paid for, if she has been a nurse for any period of time. If this provision were extended from 60 to 70 we say that is an age when perhaps it will not be reasonable to expect a woman of moderate age to marry a man of this age. We say that this is an age where the useful working life might be approaching the end and the age of pension at the present time has been arrived at. We accept the substitution of 60 without admitting that there is any reason why one widow who is the wife of an insured person who has paid his contribution
under the scheme should be disabled as compared with any other insurance person.

Mr. PALIN: I rise to support this Amendment that has been moved so eloquently by the Member for Peckham (Mr. Dalton). I confess it appears a very piffling sort of Amendment, but I would point out that the restriction is a very piffling sort of restriction. As a matter of fact this Bill has been designed, in my judgment, to stifle a growing demand that the only people who have any moral right to live on the labour of others are the widows, the orphans, or the aged. I am quite satisfied that the growing sense of public responsibility for these three sections of the community is so great that all these very small restrictions will pale into insignificance. I am quite satisfied that it will be generally recognised very shortly that these restrictions have only been introduced to whittle away and reduce the cost of the whole scheme. As a matter of fact I feel that, despite the elaborate actuarial calculations that have been placed before us, there is no need from a financial point of view to introduce such irritating restrictions as these undoubtedly will prove to be. If it be a really necessary thing, why not introduce it with regard to pensions of all descriptions? Why should a mercenary woman go and marry an old general, many of whom, I suppose, would respond to any advances that were made. It is costing the country a good deal of money to prevent these silly old men falling into the trap. The Government ought to be heartily ashamed of introducing such restrictions. Had they brought a straightforward Bill and left all these pettifogging things out it would have been much better.

The CHAIRMAN: The only question is of men between 60 and 70.

Mr. PALIN: I am trying to point out how extremely irritating is such a restriction and how difficult it is to work such a pension scheme when it is put in. It is going to increase the cost of administration. All these things will raise the cost of organising, because you have got to set on officers to find out how old the old chap was when they went to a registry office, whether this woman was a mercenary woman and the result is that you spend more money on this than the
whole thing is worth. I trust, for the authority and dignity of Parliament, that such an absurd thing will be not proceeded with.

Mr. PALING: I am dissatisfied with the replies that have been given I do not think that any satisfactory reply has been made at all. The Minister of Health said that he did not want to impute motives, but the whole of the replies that have been given to the preceding Motion have been an imputation of motives. The Minister I agree was kinder in imputing his motives than the other who preceded him because he simply said it reminds him of some benevolent old gentlemen who have young women to look after them in old age and marry them, and, of course, that was a very good motive indeed. The Attorney-General said frankly that this was in order to obviate the risk of designing young women marrying men over 60 in order to get a pension and so to be on pension until they reached 70. The hon. and gallant Member for St. Albans (Lieut.-Colonel Fremantle) drew a harrowing picture which arose out of his knowledge of women. He said he had a great knowledge of women, and he went on to suggest that his knowledge of women was such as to suggest that, if this Clause were passed, there would be a regular rush of young women for men over 60 years of age. He went on to draw another picture of women masquerading in nurse's uniform in order to get hold of these old men of 60. That was the hon. and gallant Member's argument. All this was for the sake of protecting these people. I submit that that kind of argument is not good

enough. It may be that in the years that have to come as the hon. Member for East Middlesbrough (Miss Wilkinson) pointed out, there may be people, now boys and girls of 16 years of age who will pay up to the age of GO and may for various reasons never have been married and may have subscribed to the fund up to that time, and who by reason of this disqualification will be cut out of the benefits accruing to somebody else. It is not good enough. The Minister of Health said that it would create a scandal. I suggest that putting in this qualification will create a bigger scandal than if it were left out. It is a disgrace that a man or woman of this age should have this disqualification put upon them. Surely in the majority of cases if they pay their contributions they should have these pensions. I appeal to the Minister of Health, seeing that he could not accept the removal of the whole proviso, to accept this compromise so as to obviate the hardship on hundreds of these people if this Clause goes through as it is. The Minister of Health would not suggest that the number of people who would get married after this age for mercenary motives is so great as to warrant excluding everybody. I am sure that the number of people who would do that is a very small proportion.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: rose, in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 246 Noes, 124.

Division No. 239.]
AYES.
[9.38 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Cassels, J. D.


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Blades, Sir George Rowland
Cautley, Sir Henry S.


Albery, Irving James
Blundell, F. N.
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Brass, Captain W.
Chapman, Sir S.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Chilcott, Sir Warden


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Briggs, J. Harold
Christie, J. A.


Astor, Viscountess
Brittain, Sir Harry
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.


Atholl, Duchess of
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Clarry, Reginald George


Atkinson, C.
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Cobb, Sir Cyril


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Cohen, Major J. Brunei


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Buckingham, Sir H.
Conway, Sir W. Martin


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Cooper, A. Duff


Beamish, Captain T. P. H.
Burman, J. B.
Cope, Major William


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.
Couper, J. B.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Burton, Colonel H. W.
Courtauld, Major J. S.


Bethell, A.
Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry


Betterton, Henry B.
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Caine, Gordon Hall
Crook, C. W.


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Rawson, Alfred Cooper


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert
Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.)
Remer, J. R.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Rentoul, G. S.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Huntingfield, Lord
Rice, Sir Frederick


Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Rye, F. G.


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Salmon, Major I.


Dixey, A. C.
Jacob, A. E.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Jephcott, A. R.
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Doyle, Sir N. Grattan
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Sandon, Lord


Eden, Captain Anthony
Knox, Sir Alfred
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Savery, S. S.


Edwards, John H. (Accrington)
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Shaw, R G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)


Elliot. Captain Walter E.
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)


Elveden, Viscount
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)


England, Colonel A.
Loder, J. de V.
Sinclair. Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfst.)


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Looker, Herbert William
Skeiton, A. N.


Evans, Captain A (Cardiff, South)
Lougher, L.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Everard, W. Lindsay
Lumley, L. R.
Smithers, Waldron


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Lynn, Sir R. J.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
MacAndrew, Charles Glen
Spender Clay, Colonel H.


Fermoy, Lord
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F.(Will'sden, E)


Fielden, E. B.
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Finburgh, S.
Macintyre, I.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Fleming, D. P.
McLean, Major A.
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Ford, P. J.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Forrest, W.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Templeton, W. P.


Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.
Meller, R. J.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Merriman, F. B.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Tinne, J. A.


Ganzoni, Sir John
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Gates, Percy
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Cower, Sir Robert
Moles, Thomas
Waddington, R.


Grace, John
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Crotrian, H. Brent
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol, N.)
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Murchison, C. K.
Watts, Dr. T.


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Nelson, Sir Frank
Wells, S. R.


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Neville, R. J.
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple


Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Hammersley, S. S.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Hanbury, C.
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Harrison, G. J. C.
Nuttall, Ellis
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Wise, Sir Fredric


Haslam, Henry C.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Wolmer, Viscount


Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Penny, Frederick George
Womersley, W. J.


Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Wood, Rt. Hon. E. (York, W. R., Ripon)


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Wood. E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Perring, William George
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A.
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Phillipson, Mabel
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St. Marylebone)
Pielou, D. P.
Wragg, Herbert


Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Power, Sir John Cecil



Holt, Capt. H. P.
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Homan, C. W. J.
Preston, William
Captain Margesson and Lord


Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Price, Major C. W. M.
Stanley.


Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Ramsden, E.



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Connolly, M.
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Cove, W. G.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)


Ammon, Charles George
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Hardie, George D.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Dalton, Hugh
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Hastings, Sir Patrick


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Dennison, R.
Hayday, Arthur


Barnes, A.
Duncan, C.
Hayes, John Henry


Barr, J.
Dunnico, H.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Hirst, G. H.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Gillett, George M.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)


Broad, F. A.
Graham, D, M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Hore-Belisha, Leslie


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Greenall, T.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)


Buchanan, G.
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)


Cape, Thomas
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)


Charleton, H. C.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
John, William (Rhondda, West)


Clowes, S.
Groves, T.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)


Cluse, W. S.
Grundy, T. W.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)




Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Slivertown)
Potts, John S.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Thurtle, E.


Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Riley, Ben
Tinker, John Joseph


Kelly, W. T.
Ritson, J.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Kennedy, T.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Varley, Frank B.


Kenyon, Barnet
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)
Viant, S. P.


Kirkwood, D.
Saklatvala, Shapurji
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Lansbury, George
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Lawson, John James
Sexton, James
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Lee, F.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Lowth, T.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Welsh, J. C.


Lunn, William
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Mackinder, W.
Sitch, Charles, H.
Whiteley, W.


Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


March, S.
Smillie, Robert
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Montague, Frederick
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Murnin, H.
Snell, Harry
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Naylor, T. E.
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Oliver, George Harold
Stamford, T. W.
Windsor, Walter


Palin, John Henry
Stephen, Campbell
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Paling, W.
Sutton, J. E.



Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Taylor, R. A.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Fonsonby, Arthur
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.




Charles Edwards.

Question put accordingly, "That the word 'sixty' stand part of the Cluase."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 255; Noes, 121.

Division No. 240.
AYES.
[9.48 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol, N.)


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Gunston, Captain D. w.


Albery, Irving James
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Cooper, A. Duff
Hall, Lieut. Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Cope, Major William
Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Couper, J. B.
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Hammersley, S. S.


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Hanbury, C.


Astor, Viscountess
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Atholl, Duchess of
Crook, C. W.
Haslam, Henry C.


Atkinson, C.
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Henderson. Cant. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert
Henn, Sir Sydney H.


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A.


Beamish, Captain T. P. H.
Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S)
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy


Bethell, A.
Dixey, A. C.
Holt, Capt. H. P.


Betterton, Henry B.
Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Homan, C. W. J.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Doyle, Sir N. Grattan
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)


Bird Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Duckworth, John
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Eden, Captain Anthony
Hopkins, J. W. W.


Blundell, F. N.




Bourne Cantain Robert Croft
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)


Boyd-carpenter, Major A.
Erwards, John H. (Accrington)
Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb, N.)


Brass, Captain W.
Elliot, Captain Walter E.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Elveden, Colonel
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)


Brians, J. Harold
England, Colonel A.
Huntingfield, Lord


Brittain, Sir Harry
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Jacob, A. E.


Brown Brig-Gen, H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Jephcott, A. R.


Buckingham Sir H.
Fermoy, Lord
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Fielden, E. S.
King, Captain Henry Douglas


Burman J. B.
Finburgh, S.
Knox, Sir Alfred


Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.
Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Fleming, D. P.
Little, Dr. E. Graham


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Ford, P. J.
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)


Calne, Gordon Hall
Forrest, W.
Loder, J. de V.


Cassels, J. D.
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Looker, Herbert William


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Lougher, L.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)
Gadie, Lieut.-Colonel Anthony
Lumley, L. R.


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Lynn, Sir R. J.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Ganzoni, Sir John
MacAndrew, Charles Glen


Chapman, Sir S.
Gates, Percy
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Chilcott, Sir Warden
Goff, Sir Park
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus


Christie, J. A.
Gower, Sir Robert
Macintyre, I.


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Grace, John
McLean, Major A.


Clarry, Reginald George
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Grotrian, H. Brent
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Ramsden, E.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Marriott, Sir. J. A. R.
Rawson, Alfred Cooper
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Meller, R. J.
Rees, Sir Beddoe
Tinne, J. A.


Merriman, F. B.
Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Remer, J. R.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Rentoul, G. S.
Waddington, R.


Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Rice, Sir Frederick
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Moles, Thomas
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Rye, F. G.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Salmon, Major I.
Watts, Dr. T.


Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Wells, S. R.


Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Sandeman, A. Stewart
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Murchison, C. K.
Sandon, Lord
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple


Nelson, Sir Frank
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Neville, R. J.
Savery, S. S.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R. Sowerby)
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsl'ld.)
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Sheffield Sir Berkeley
Wise, Sir Fredric


Nuttall, Ellis
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfst)
Wolmer, Viscount


O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Skelton, A. N.
Womersley, W. J.


Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Wood, Rt. Hon. E. (York, W. R., Ripon)


Penny, Frederick George
Smithers, Waldron
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).


Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Spender Clay, Colonel H.
Wood, Sir S. Hill-(High Peak)


Perring, William George
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F.(Will'sden, E.)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Wragg, Herbert


Philipson, Mabel
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Young, E. Hilton (Norwich)


Pleiou, D. P.
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.



Power, Sir John Cecil
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Lord Stanley and Captain


Preston, William
Sugden, Sir Wilfred
Margesson.


Price, Major C. W. M.
Templeton, W. P.



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hayday, Arthur
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hayes, John Henry
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Ammon, Charles George
Hirst, G. H.
Sitch, Charles H.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Smillie, Robert


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Barnes, A.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Nesth)
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)


Barr, J.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Snell, Harry


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Broad, F. A.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Stamford, T. W.


Buchanan, G.
Kelly, W. T.
Stephen, Campbell


Cape, Thomas
Kennedy, T.
Sutton, J. E.


Charleton, H. C.
Kenyon, Barnet
Taylor, R. A.


Clowes, S.
Kirkwood, D.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Cluse, W. S.
Lansbury, George
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Lawson, John James
Thurtle, E.


Connolly, M.
Lee, F.
Tinker, John Joseph


Cove, W. G.
Lowth, T.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lunn, William
Varley, Frank B.


Dalton, Hugh
Mackinder, W.
Viant, S. P.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Dennison, R.
March, S.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Duncan, C.
Montague, Frederick
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Dunnico, H.
Murnin, H.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Naylor, T. E.
Welsh, J. C.


Gillett, George M.
Oliver, George Harold
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Palin, John Henry
Whiteley, W.


Greenall, T.
Paling, W.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Griffiths, T. (Monmeuth, Pontypool)
Potts, John S.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Groves, T.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Grundy, T. W.
Riley, Ben
Windsor, Walter


Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Ritson, J.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hall, Fredk. (Yorks, Normanton)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F.O.(W. Bromwich)



Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hardie, George D.
Saklatvala, Shapurji
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Charles Edwards.


Hastings, Sir Patrick
Sexton, James

Mr. SMILLIE: I beg to move in page 3, line 8, to leave out the word "five," and
to insert instead thereof the word "two."
There seems to be a fairly general view on this side, and in the Committee generally, that these provisions have been put into this Bill because of an idea held by hon. Members on the Government side that if the Bill be passed—as we desire it to be passed—there will follow immediately on its operation a man hunt. If any such thought as that is in the minds of hon. Members opposite, they are placing the womanhood of the industrial classes of this country on a very low level. Probably most of us on this side know our women folk in the industrial class better than hon. Members opposite have an opportunity of knowing them, and we feel that it is not for a pension of 10s. a week that many of our women folk would deliberately marry a man for whom they had no respect. If it is desired to protect elderly men, the Government should put a drastic Clause into the Bill that any woman found to be chasing an elderly gentleman with a view to marriage would be severely punished.
I remind the Committee that this is called a widows' pension Bill, but we see already that it is not really a widows' pension Bill; it is a pensions Bill for some widows and some widows only. I have known of many marriages in humble life of elderly people—not, it may be, of a young woman marrying an elderly gentleman but marriages of elderly people—which were really marriages of affection and which turned out very well. It must be remembered that many working men are employed in laborious and unhealthy work and at 60 years of age they are on the down grade so far as health is concerned. They may be widowers or elderly bachelors, and they may require and, in many cases, do require, at that age, if they are unmarried or widowers, the help and the attention and service of a good woman and we should rather encourage marriages if that is to be the outcome of them. I would prefer that there should be no waiting period at all but that the widow should be entitled to her pension after the death of her husband. I appeal, however, to the Government to accept this Amendment as a compromise. I do not think the cost would be a very great matter but it would give considerable satisfaction as against the Clause as it now stands.

10.0 P.M.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I felt compelled to refuse to accept these two Amendments because, after all, the fund is in need of defence against certain conditions described in the discussion of the last Amendment, but I do not want to be too stiff about this Clause, and I am ready to go some way to meet the hon. Member. He has suggested two years instead of five. I think two years is too short a period, but if he will make it three years instead of five, I shall be pleased to accept an Amendment to that effect.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: In page 3, line 8, leave out the word "five," and insert instead thereof the word "three."—[Mr. Smillie.]

Viscountess ASTOR: I beg to move, in page 3, line 18, at the end, to insert the words
Provided that where, at the date of the death of her husband, the widow shall be under the age of fifty and shall have no child in respect of whom an additional allowance is payable, her widow's pension shall be suspended during such period, if any, as shall elapse between the date of the expiration of twelve months from such death and the date upon which she shall attain the age of fifty.
I had hoped to move this Amendment perhaps at seven or eight o'clock this morning when the Minister of Health might have been prepared to accept it, and when I am certain the Committee was in the stage of being ready to do nearly anything, but owing to the eloquence of our Socialist friends—some would call it long-windedness, but I call it eloquence—the time never came. Perhaps it is just as well that I should now submit it when the Committee is in a more cool and temperate mood. I take it no hon. Member thinks that what we are giving to the children and the widows in this Bill is adequate or final. Certainly the Minister of Health does not think so. No one has dreamed of saying that the widows or the children could live on what they are to get under this Measure. We realise that fact on this side, but we face facts and we prefer having a half-loaf to having no loaf at all. My Amendment has many advantages. One is that it gives an extra 1s. to the eldest child for sickness insurance. Mr. Seebohm Rowntree in his "Human Needs of Labour" said of sick children that 6s. was the
minimum on which a child could live. Under this Amendment we give for the first child 6s. and for the second child 4s.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I understood that the Noble Lady was moving the Amendment at the top of page 1327 of the Order Paper.

Viscountess ASTOR: I had to explain in this Amendment how we are going to get the money, and I understood from Mr. Hope that I was to be allowed to bring it into this Amendment in order to save time.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I take it that the Amendment which my Noble Friend moves is to be taken with other Amendments, and that what she desires to do is to add to the children's allowances, and to find the necessary funds for that purpose by excluding from the benefits of the Bill a widow who was under the age of 50 at the time of her husband's death and who had not children under age, subject to a pension at the age of 50. First of all, or. the financial side, I am sorry to say that the savings to be achieved by this proposal would not, in themselves, be sufficient to provide the extra, children's allowances which my Noble Friend has in mind, and I have here figures which show that there would be an additional charge in respect of the current year amounting to £300,000. That would rise to £1,000,000, and it would not be until we reach the year 1940 that the balance between the two sides of the account would be achieved. I think, on these grounds alone, I should find it necessary to decline to accept the Amendment, but there are other grounds which seem to me to be conclusive against schemes of this kind. Take the case of a woman of 45 who had children, but all were above the age of 14. She would have been through all the trouble of bringing up her children, and they might to some extent still be dependent upon her. But one year after her husband's death she would cease to receive a pension, and might never reach the age of 50, when, according to my hon. Friend's Amendment she would come back to benefit. I do not think we could justify an Amendment of that kind, which would certainly inflict hardship upon widows, and I do not think it would be acceptable to the
men, in respect of whose contribution insurance was payable, who had been forced to make their contribution whether they liked it or not, but who would, as a matter of fact, feel, in these circumstances, that they had left their widows totally unprovided for. Although I recognise the force of the considerations which have led my noble Friend to try to find the finances for her scheme, I am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I find myself on this occasion, as on many other occasions, in agreement with the Noble Lady. I consider that it is a good Socialist doctrine that we should give to those according to their need. We are distributing the State's largesse. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] Part of it is the State's largesse, and, if I had my way, the whole would be the State's largesse, and there would be no contributions at all. But, at any rate, there is a considerable State contribution. In all the schemes that have been propounded for the relief of widows and dependent children, we have always been told that the need was for pensions for mothers to bring up their children, and I have never heard in any of these schemes that the young childless widows who are left should receive pensions. I think it would be better policy, from the point of view of the State, to give extra money to the widow with children than the widow with no children. [An HON. MEMBER: "At what age."] I should say 35. But, in any case, 10s. is not going to keep a woman off the labour market. She has to earn a living somewhere, or go to the parish for relief. The hon. Member for East Middlesbrough (Miss Wilkinson) has pointed out— and I think she represents the views of many who have to earn their living— that these women will be subsidised to undercut women who are being mulcted in payment to pay for them. I think there is a case for leaving the childless widow out of the Bill. It may be unpopular, but it has got to be stated in this House. The young, childless widow in some cases—I admit that the age of 50 is too high—may deliberately avoid her obligations as a mother, and deliberately avoid having children. That is not in the interests of the State, and any State that encourages that will go the way of other Empires that have
encouraged it and been ruined in consequence.

Mr. ERSKINE: Hear, hear!

Lieut. Commander KENWORTHY: I am surprised at this unexpected support from Hanover Square. There is little enough money in this Bill for orphans, and anything we can get from some other class of beneficiaries should go to the children. They are the most important. It has been pointed out again and again in these Debates that the allowance for children is absolutely inadequate to bring up healthy children, and it is more important that extra money should be given to the rearing of young children, and that mothers should live with their children, and not leave them to neighbours to look after. It is much more important than that childless women should receive this subsidy, which will enable them to go into the labour market and compete against their unmarried sisters and in some cases, of course, their married sisters too, but I am thinking more of the young unmarried women, who, with the present proportion of the sexes, have little chance of ever getting married. I do not like to use the term "surplus women," but there is a shortage of marriageable men, and there are many women who have little chance of marrying and who have to earn a living under very difficult conditions for the whole of their lives. They will be mulcted weekly to subsidise young, able-bodied women who happen to have lost their husbands and who have no children dependent on them. I think there is a great deal to be said for the principle of the Amendment. I admire the Noble Lady for having brought it forward, and I am not going to remain silent and let the case go by default.

Mr. SPENCER: One cannot think for a moment that the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) has actually read the Amendment, because I am certain of this, that had he devoted any attention whatever to it, he would not have made the speech to which we have just listened. If the Amendment means what I think it means, and what the English language means, to my mind, a woman can have children under this Amendment and not get any pension at all. The Amendment
says "shall have no child in respect of whom an additional allowance is payable." That means, in effect, that she can have a child of 15 or 16 years of age who may be apprenticed and get little or no money, and, because they are over 14 years of age and are getting no allowance under this scheme, if this Amendment were carried, that woman would not get a pension. That would be the effect of this proposal, and I am convinced that, if the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull had read the Amendment, he would not have been supporting a proposition of that character.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I have read the Amendment, and I realise the point the hon. Member mentions, but, to my mind, it is much more important that young, infant children should have the money than boys and girls of 15 and 16.

Mr. SPENCER: That makes it more remarkable still. There is no Member of this House who has so frequently stood up to advocate the rights of children being educated than the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull, and now he seems to be deprecating the fact that provision is made in this Bill for these children being continued at school. I still think he has not given the consideration to the Amendment that it deserves. I would like to say a word with regard to the source from which this Amendment emanates, and again to express my surprise. If I am not mistaken, this Amendment has emanated from the National Association of Equal Citizenship.

Viscountess ASTOR: May I just interrupt to say that they are against this Amendment?

Mr. SPENCER: It seemed to me, from what I have read, to emanate from them, but, in any case, I must express surprise that it can be suggested in this House that a woman, at 47 years of age, who may have been married for 20 years, who, perhaps, has been unfortunate enough to have no children, or who may have had children and lost them by death, should not have a pension for 12 months, and then that that pension should cease until she is 50. I am thoroughly convinced that a proposition of that character cannot find favour in this House, and I am surprised indeed that the hon. Member
for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) should have lent her support to an Amendment which would have that serious and disastrous effect to a woman at that time of life. Does the Noble Lady suggest that for one moment a woman who may have been a housewife for 20 or 25 years is a suitable subject to begin all over again to find employment in order to get a living? It stands to reason that, after she has been a housewife, as it may be possible, for 22 or 23 years, or up to 27 years, and then finds that the breadwinner has been taken from her, she will not be a fit subject to compete in the labour market with those women who have been working all their life in industry. I submit that she will be a totally unfit subject. If this Amendment be carried, I think it is fair to say that the Noble Lady opposite will have-carried an Amendment that will be calculated, under certain circumstances, to foster a standard of life among women which she herself has more than once protested against. Because a woman must live. It is quite evident that after she is 47, and can find no means of existing by her own endeavour in industry, there are only two sources open to her—the one is the Poor Law, and the other is that she shall sell her body and soul to keep alive. It is conceivable that circumstances would arise, if this Amendment be carried, that would mean that women would be driven to that undesirable extreme in which they would have to seek to get their living by selling both their body and their soul.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: May I also express my deep surprise at the source from which this Amendment has corned May I also express my surprise at the support that it has received from the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy)? I feel sure that hon. Members have had no experience of the Poor Law and cognate matters, or they would not have spoken as they have done. It has been my fortunate or unfortunate experience to have had experience of the Poor Law. Many women, long before they reach 47, are not fit for work, and have to seek the aid of the Poor Law. As my hon. Friend the Member for Broxstowe (Mr. G. Spencer) has said after a woman has been
a housewife for 25 years and her husband dies, there is not a great deal left for her but domestic service. As has been pointed out, there would appear to be no alternative, failing the help suggested in the Bill, to the dreadful course suggested. I trust the Government are going to hold to their decision not to have this Amendment.

Viscountess ASTOR: Might I just explain, before withdrawing the Amendment, why it was put down? We know that the Government have only a certain sum of money, and that they are not going beyond it. I myself know of cases of hardship to widows who have children, and who have arrived at 45. I quite realise that; but I had to take into consideration in the meantime that the main purpose of the Clause is for the young widow with small children. It seemed to me that the most needy case was the young widow with young children, and that in a case of that kind even a few shillings more would be very helpful. I quite realise what has been said by hon. Members opposite, but the whole point in my mind was the young widow with young children. I am very sorry that the Minister of Health says that he cannot give what I ask, because it would not work out in his scheme. The actuarial report that I had worked out for me suggests that my Amendment would have given 1s. a week extra to the children. The Minister himself in his Second Reading speech put out the suggestion that childless widows under 40 might be taken off the funds and brought in again at 65. My scheme would have brought the widow in again at 50. I must accept what the Minister of Health says. I know he is just as anxious as I am about the children, and I am perfectly certain that he has done everything he can to meet the case. As to the suggestion that I have always fought for widows' pensions, I have fought for these things, and in the course of it have come to consider the tragedy of widows with children who have gone to school, and the mother left, possibly for four or five years, without anything at all. She will not be able to live on 10s. a week. [Interruption.] I quite agree, and I have considered it all, but on the whole I thought the case of the widow with young children was more important, and I risked the unpopularity of this. I know it is unpopular. The Minister
made the point that a man who insured for his widow would expect her to get the money, but he has also made the point that all insurance is a risk. A man who insures in the expectation that his widow will remain a widow is insuring for a risk, because we all know that there is nothing more taking than a young widow. It has been shown that 5,000 of these widows marry out of 11,000.

Mr. SPENCER: Under the last Amendment she was not to marry a man at 60. What is she to do?

Viscountess ASTOR: I am not going back to the last Amendment. We fought that out at the time, and I am not going to be drawn into that. I would only say that I deeply regret that the Minister cannot find a way of giving the children more money. In moving this I was quite willing to risk unpopularity, but I wanted to give the young widow with children extra money. I would like to withdraw the Amendment. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]

Mr. LANSBURY: There are plenty of ways of finding this money if the Noble Lady will take a little more of her courage in two hands and organise her fellow Members on the other side to bring pressure to bear upon the Ministry to compel the Chancellor of the Exchequer to find more money from the super-rich. This is the wickedest proposition that has been made. I know the sort of women this would penalise. Every Poor Law guardian, and I am speaking in the presence of numbers of them, knows perfectly well that the most pathetic spectacle that ever presents herself before a relief committee is the childless woman who has lost her husband and very often has not a friend in the world. Now it is said that the desire is to find money to give to the children. We also want to raise the allowance to the children. Will the Noble Lady and her friends vote with us when we are trying to do that? No, because they will not go where the money is. I am talking to you.

Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: Address the Chair.

An HON MEMBER: Do not point.

Mr. LANSBURY: This is nonsense. I have seen Members standing at the Box and talking right down the House, and I am going to look just where I like in the House. The point I am making is the case of the women whom you are going to rob, or propose to rob, though now you are trying to withdraw from the position, provides another instance of how well-to-do people try to do good by doing evil. If only all of us in this House would just put ourselves in the place either of the old friendless man, or the middle-aged friendless man or woman, we should soon understand how iniquitous it would be to offer her this money. I think that is a condemnation of the whole scheme, and it only proves that the Noble Lady opposite ought to be with us when we propose to pay 20s. pension instead of 10s. The fact is that everybody knows that this is not a Socialist proposition, and it is not even socialistic. If we were bringing in a scheme we should bring it in to apply universally and pay for it out of public funds. Under a decently organised scheme of national service, we should not have a national penalisation of the workers, and we should not give a young woman money in this way.
At present you make her husband pay and you would have to set up a great system of inquiry agencies to find out what the woman was doing, and also find out whether she was able to live on this money. I am very glad indeed that the Minister has rejected this proposal, and I only want to say that wherever the Amendment came from, it came from that sort of body which one associates with the Charity Organisation Society, who always want to organise charity by getting rid of charity so that there is nothing given at all in the end, and they always try to put the burden on one worker in order to help some others.

Major HORE-BELISHA: I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken in describing this as a wicked Amendment. The Noble Lady opposite, whatever she may be deficient in, is not deficient in courage. One must admire the spirit in which she has struck an entirely new widows' and orphans' pensions scheme. She seeks to deprive the childless widow of 10s. a week benefit, but she does this not from any wicked motive but in order to give 1s. a week more to the widow with children. When we con-
sider her scheme as an alternative to the present pension scheme, I do not think it can possibly commend itself to the Committee for that reason, because she is taking away 10s. from a woman in need in order to give 1s. a week more to a widow with children.
If she was by this proposal enabling the children to receive a better education we should have more sympathy than we have under present circumstances. What seems to have escaped the Noble Lady's attention is that this is a contributory pension scheme. If we were distributing benefits gratuitously to the community, one could understand the Noble Lady's anxiety to give a preference to a. widow with children. She is not, however, distributing the money of the community, but it is the money of those who have paid contributions, and this is one of the specific risks which a man has insured himself against because he wishes to provide for his wife by a system of public insurance in some way and he has to do it by this means. There is nothing to prevent a man going to an insurance company and trying to make some provision for his widow.
As regards the argument which has been brought forward that these women will compete on an unfair basis with other women in industry, that argument is not tenable for a moment, for this reason, that there are 300,000 war widows engaged in industry to-day, who are drawing pensions at a far higher rate than 10s. a week. The hon. Member for East Middlesbrough (Miss Wilkinson) says they can stay at home, but I do not think a woman can be expected to stay at home on 20s. a week, or even 25s., and do nothing; she has got to go into industry, and nobody has yet said that these women who are war widows should be deprived of the power to augment their pension because they are competing unfairly with others. You cannot discover that argument for the first time when you have a Bill to give pensions to civilians' widows. This scheme being a contributory pension scheme, the only result of the Noble Lady's Amendment, if it were carried, would be that you would have to diminish the contribution at present exacted under this scheme, because you would diminish the benefits that you intend to give to the widow of a man who is insured under
the Bill. While, therefore, I appreciate, as the Committee appreciates, very fully, the good intentions of the Noble Lady, I think that, on reflection, she will realise, as I have done, and as I am sure the Committee has done, that her proposal would put all the beneficiaries in a very much worse position than they are in at the present moment, and would destroy the whole unity of the scheme.

Mr. HARNEY: The whole of the argument that has been directed against this Amendment is based upon what I described on the Second Reading as the hectic widow of one night—the young woman who marries, her husband dies, and she falls into the pension. But when one looks at the matter practically, how many of these women are there? I am told that it has been actuarially calculated that the number of married women under 35 who are childless is 4 per cent., so that the only women under 35 who would get the benefit of this Measure in the way to which the Noble Lady was addressing herself would be 4 per cent. of the whole number of married women. The 96 per cent. would be women from 35 to 50 or 60, whose children had passed into other work. I want to know when you have an insurance scheme, which is a contract, why should a husband, who makes a contribution, year after year, in order that the woman who looked after him and his children should be provided for, be told that she is to get nothing if he dies so late in life that the children she has brought up are earning their livelihood elsewhere? It is a monstrous proposition. Is it to be said that when a poor woman has done her work and brought up her children, and some of them, at 16 or 17, are away earning money, they do not still look to her and look to the home for their comfort and care when they are well over 16 or 17 years of age?

Mr. ERSKINE: Divide!

Mr. HARNEY: The hon. Member, every time I have spoken, has interjected the only intelligible remark I have heard him capable of making. I hope he will learn to restrain himself in future. I endeavoured to make a few observations, and everyone else had the graciousness to listen to me except the hon. Member.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question 'That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill,' be now put."

Question put, "That the Question, 'That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill,' be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 256; Noes, 133.

Division No. 241.]
AYES.
[10.40 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Dixey, A. C.
Lougher, L.


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Lynn, Sir R. J.


Albery, Irving James
Doyle, Sir N. Grattan
MacAndrew, Charles Glen


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Duckworth, John
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Eden, Captain Anthony
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Macintyre, I.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Edwards, John H. (Accrington)
McLean, Major A.


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Elliot, Captain Walter E.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-


Astor, Viscountess
Elveden, Viscount.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Atholl, Duchess of
England, Colonel A.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Atkinson, C.
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Meller, R. J.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Merriman, F. B.


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Meyer, Sir Frank


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Milne, J. S. Ward law-


Beamish. Captain T. P. H.
Fermoy, Lord
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Fielden, E. B.
Moles, Thomas


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Finburgh, S.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Bethell, A.
Fleming, D. P.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Betterton. Henry B.
Ford, P. J.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Murchison, C. K.


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Gadie, Lieut.-Colonel Anthony
Nelson. Sir Frank


Blundell, F. N.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Neville, R. J.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Ganzoni, Sir John
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Gates, Percy
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Brass, Captain W.
Goff, Sir Park
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Gower, Sir Robert
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)


Briggs, J. Harold
Grace, John
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert


Brittain, Sir Harry
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Nuttall, Ellis


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Grotrian, H. Brent
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Guest. Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol, N.)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Penny, Frederick George


Buckingham, Sir H.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Burman, J. B.
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Perring, William George


Burney. Lieut.-Com. Charles D.
Hammersley, S. S.
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Burton, Colonel, H. W.
Hanbury, C.
Philipson, Mabel


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Pielou, D. P.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Haslam, Henry C.
Power, Sir John Cecil


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hawke, John Anthony
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Preston, William


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Price, Major C. W. M.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Raine, W.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A.
Ramsden, E.


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Rawson, Alfred Cooper


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hilton, Cecil
Rees, Sir Beddoe


Chilcott, Sir Warden
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Christie, J. A.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Remer, J. R.


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Rentoul, G. S.


Clarry, Reginald George
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Clayton, G. C.
Holt, Capt. H. P.
Rice, Sir Frederick


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Homan. C. W. J.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Hopkins. J. W. W.
Rye, F. G.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Salmon, Major I.


Cooper, A. Duff
Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Couper, J. B.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Huntingfield, Lord
Sandon, Lord


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Crook, C. W.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Savery, S. S.


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Jacob, A. E.
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl.(Renfrew. W.)


Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert
Jephcott, A. R.
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Knox, Sir Alfred
Shepperson, E. W.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lister, Cunliffe-. Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfst)


Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Skelton, A. N.


Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Smithers, Waldron


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Loder, J. de V.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Looker, Herbert William
Spender Clay, Colonel H.


Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Waddington, R.
Wolmer, Viscount


Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)
Womersley, W. J.


Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Wood, Rt. Hon. E. (York, W. R., Ripon)


Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.
Warrender, Sir Victor
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).


Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Watts, Dr. T.
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Wells, S. R.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Tasker, Major R. Inigo
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.
Wragg, Herbert


Templeton, W. P.
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple



Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Major Cope and Captain


Tinne, J. A.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Margesson.


Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hirst, G. H.
Scrymgeour, E.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Sexton, James


Ammon, Charles George
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Sitch, Charles H.


Barr, J.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Smillie, Robert


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Broad, F. A.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Bromfield, William
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Brown, James (Ayr and Buts)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Snell, Harry


Buchanan, G.
Kelly, W. T.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Cape, Thomas
Kennedy, T.
Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)


Charleton, H. C.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Stamford, T. W.


Clowes, S.
Kirkwood, D.
Stephen, Campbell


Cluse, W. S.
Lansbury, George
Sutton, J. E.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Lawson, John James
Taylor, R. A.


Connolly, M.
Lee, F.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Cove, W. G.
Lowth, T.
Thurtle, E.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lunn, William
Tinker, John Joseph


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Day, Colonel Harry
Mackinder, W.
Varley, Frank B.


Dennison, R.
MacLaren, Andrew
Viant, S. P.


Dunnico, H.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
March, S.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Maxton, James
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Gillett, George M.
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Montague, Frederick
Welsh, J. C.


Grant, J. A.
Murnin, H.
Westwood, J.


Greenwood,-A. (Nelson and Colne)
Naylor, T. E.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Grenfell, b. R. (Glamorgan)
Oliver, George Harold
Whiteley, W.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Palin, John Henry
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Groves, T.
Paling, W.
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Grundy, T. W.
Parkinson, John Alien (Wigan)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Hall, Fredk. (Yorks, Normanton)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield. Attercliffe)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr, Tydvil)
Potts, John S.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Hardie, George D.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Windsor, Walter


Harney, E. A.
Riley, Ben
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Harris, Percy A.
Ritson, J.



Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hastings, Sir Patrick
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. A.


Hayday, Arthur
Rose, Frank H.
Barnes,


Hayes, John Henry
Saklatvala, Shapurji

Question put accordingly, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes. 260; Noes. 120.

Division No. 242.]
AYES.
[10.51 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Brass, Captain W.


Albery, Irving James
Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Beamish, Captain T. P. H.
Briggs, J. Harold


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Brittain, Sir Harry


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth. Drake)
Brocklebank, C. E. R.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Bethell, A.
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.


Astbury, Lieut.-commander F. W.
Betterton, Henry B.
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.


Astor. Viscountess.
Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks, Newb'y)


Atholl, Duchess of
Blades, Sir George Rowland
Buckingham, Sir H.


Atkinson, C.
Blundell, F. N.
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft.
Burman, J. B.


Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.
Hanbury, C.
Power, Sir John Cecil


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Haslam, Henry C.
Preston, William


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hawke, John Anthony
Price, Major C. W. M.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Raine, W


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R.(Prtsmth, S.)
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Ramsden, E.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Rawson, Alfred Cooper


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A.
Rees, Sir Beddoe


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Hilton, Cecil
Remer, J. R.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Rentoul, G. S.


Chilcott, Sir Warden
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St. Marylebone)
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Christie, J. A.
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Rice, Sir Frederick


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Clarry, Reginald George
Holt, Capt. H. P.
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.


Clayton, G. C.
Homan, C. W. J.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Rye, F. G.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Salmon, Major I.


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.)
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Cooper, A. Duff
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Couper, J. B.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Sandon, Lord


Courtauld, Major J, S.
Huntingfield, Lord
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.
Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)
Savery, S. S.


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl.(Renfrew, W.)


Crook, C. W.
Jacob, A. E.
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Jephcott, A. R.
Shepperson, E. W.


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfast)


Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert
Knox, Sir Alfred
Skelton, A. N.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Smithers, Waldron


Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Spender Clay, Colonel H.


Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)
Loder, J. de V.
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F.(Will'sden, E)


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Looker, Herbert William
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Lougher, L.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Dixey, A. C.
Lynn, Sir R. J.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
MacAndrew, Charles Glen
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Doyle, Sir N. Grattan
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Duckworth, John
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Eden, Captain Anthony
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Macintyre, I.
Tasker, Major R. Inigo


Edwards, John H. (Accrington)
McLean, Major A.
Templeton, W. P.


Elliot, Captain Walter E.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Elveden, Viscount
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


England, Colonel A.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Tinne, J. A.


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Meller, R. J.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Everard, W. Lindsay
Merriman, F. B.
Waddington, R.


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Meyer, Sir Frank
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Fermoy, Lord
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Fielden, E. B.
Moles, Thomas
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Finburgh, S.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Watts, Dr. T.


Fleming, D. P.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Wells, S. R.


Ford, P. J.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Murchison, C. K.
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Gadie, Lieut.-Colonel Anthony
Nelson, Sir Frank
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Neville, R. J.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Ganzoni, Sir John
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Gates, Percy
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Wise, Sir Fredric


Goff, Sir Park
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)
Wolmer, Viscount


Gower, Sir Robert
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Womersley, W. J.


Grace, John
Nuttall, Ellis
Wood, Rt. Hon. E. (York, W. R., Ripon)


Greene, W. P. Crawford
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Grotrian, H. Brent
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).


Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol, N.)
Ormsby-Gore. Hon. William
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Penny, Frederick George
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Wragg, Herbert


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.



Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)
Perring, William George
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Phillpson, Mabel
Major Cope and Captain


Hammersley, S. S.
Pleiou, D. P.
Margesson.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Broad, F. A.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Bromfield, William


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Barr, J.
Brown, James (Ayr and Butt)


Ammon. Charles George
Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Buchanan, G.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Cape, Thomas




Charleton, H. C.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Clowes, S.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Sitch, Charles H.


Cluse, W. S.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Smillie, Robert


Connolly, M.
Kelly, W. T.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Cove, W. G.
Kennedy, T.
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Kirkwood, D.
Snell, Harry


Day, Colonel Harry
Lansbury, George
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Dennison, R.
Lawson, John James
Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)


Dunnico, H.
Lee, F.
Stamford, T. W.


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Lowth, T.
Stephen, Campbell


Gillett, George M.
Lunn, William
Sutton, J. E.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Mackinder, W.
Taylor, R. A.


Greenall, T.
MacLaren, Andrew
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Coins)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Thurtle, E.


Grenfell, D. H. (Glamorgan)
March, S.
Tinker, John Joseph


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Maxton, James
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Groves, T.
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred
Varley, Frank B.


Grundy, T. W.
Montague, Frederick
Viant, S. P.


Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Murnin, H.
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Naylor, T. E.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Oliver, George Harold
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Palin, John Henry
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Hardie, George D.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Welsh, J. C.


Harney, E. A.
Ponsonby, Arthur
Westwood, J.


Harris, Percy A.
Potts, John S.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Whiteley, W.


Hastings, Sir Patrick
Riley, Ben
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Hayday, Arthur
Ritson, J.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Hayes, John Henry
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W. Bromwich)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Robinson. W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Hirst, G. H.
Rose, Frank H.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Saklatvala, Shapurji
Windsor, Walter


Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Scrymgeour, E.



Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Sexton, James
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. A.


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Barnes.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
11.0 P.M.
I think that the conduct of the Government in regard to this Measure is becoming not merely objectionable, but scandalous. The Bill is one of extreme importance. It has been examined by the Committee up to now in the most sympathetic, in the most careful, and in the most unobjectionable manner. I question whether any hon. Member can recall a contentious Measure of first class importance that has been treated in a more friendly way by the Opposition than has this Measure. The conduct of the Minister of Health, who is in charge of the Bill, and of the Attorney-General, who is here to assist him, has been not merely offensive to the Opposition but degrading to the traditions of this House. When Members on this side, displaying a fund of knowledge of the subject that ought to have been welcomed and co-operated with amicably by the Government, in rising and intelligently discussing this Bill have put questions to the Government and its representatives respectfully asking for information, they have been treated most offensively by their questions
being disregarded and the Closure being moved. That went on in the earlier stages and we did not object to it. But when we reach a stage at which the representative of the Government rises and submits to you a Motion "That the Question be now put," on a Clause, before giving us any opportunity of discussing that Clause, it is our business to protest, not merely on our own behalf, but as people who are responsible for protecting the rights and dignities of this House.
I can only be forced to believe that the Minister of Health and his associates would not behave in this manner if they were in a fit physical condition. We have to make due allowance for the fact that they have come through a laborious time, and no doubt their nerves are a little rattled. But there is no reason why important business of this kind should be conducted to meet the convenience of people who really ought to be in their beds. If we were to submit to this, we would not be doing our duty. I think it is a perfectly reasonable request that, in the present physical condition of His Majesty's Government, as displayed in the proposals which they have now, by their overwhelming majority, succeeded in carrying through this House, we
should report Progress in order that they might rest and come back in a more fit state to transact the business of the Committee. I hope the Motion will not be objected to by the Government but if they do not see their way to accept this proposal and if this measure is to be discussed at greater length I hope that we and the Committee generally will be treated with more courtesy during the remaining discussion.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: rose to put the Question.

Mr. LANSBURY: rose—

HON. MEMBERS: Order!

Mr. LANSBURY: On a point of Order. I want to ask whether we are not allowed to say a word on this Motion. Are we to be gagged by the majority and by yourself?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am about to put the Question, after which the hon. Member can speak.

Mr. LANSBURY: It is excusable that we should attempt to make our voices heard, because the proceedings on this Bill have up to the present, occasionally, been in my judgment very irregular indeed. Last night I tried hard to get in a point, and had I been allowed to do so it would have saved some amount of disorder. [Laughter.] I can understand that this business is a joke to the Members who only come to vote, but those who sat here all last night trying to improve the Bill feel that it is a serious matter. What we object to to-night is that the Attorney-General a few hours ago was asked a question by one of my hon. Friends who very seldom takes part in debate in this House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because he does not want to do so.

Mr. MACLEAN: Like many on the other side.

Mr. LANSBURY: He put a perfectly simple question to the Attorney-General in a perfectly respectful manner, and all he got in reply was a Motion by the Attorney-General "That the Question be now put." I speak in the presence of men who were here during the heated controversies connected with the Home Rule, Parliament and Insurance Acts, and I want to say as regards the behaviour
and the Amendments and the discussions by the group on these benches in regard to this Bill and to the Government's legislation this year and the year before last—why we have simply given you your business without any opposition at all compared with the attitude that was taken by your party on those other occasions. What I complain of is that hon. Members opposite have only to mention the Closure and it is granted. Here is an important Clause containing a principle which many of us hate and detest, and we are denied with the consent of the Chair. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"!

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I cannot allow the hon. Member to censure the Chair.

Mr. BUCHANAN: If an hon. Member thinks your conduct is wrong, as I think it is wrong, is he not entitled to say so?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I pointed out yesterday that if any hon. Member has a complaint against the Chair, there is the regular method of placing a Motion on the Paper.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Surely a Member is entitled to express an opinion. I am going to tell you you are wrong. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]

Mr. LANSBURY: I did not express any opinion. I simply said that it was done with the consent of the Chair, and, without your consent, the Motion could not have been put. I was only stating a fact. I do not dispute your right to exercise your judgment as you will, but I wish to point out that you denied us the right which I always thought was the inalienable right of a minority to discuss the adding of the Clause of the Bill.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is not the question which the hon. Member ought to discuss. It is for me to decide whether I consider the Motion before the Committee has been adequately discussed.

Mr. LANSBURY: But I am supporting this Motion to report Progress because I think the Closure ought not to have been moved. The right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) will remember that in the Home Rule Parliament and the Parliament that dealt with the House of Lords not a line of any of those Bills was allowed to pass without discussion. Any
attempt on the part of the Liberal Government of that day to do what has been done to us to-night would have led not merely to uproar, but to a riot. The right hon. Gentleman himself was subjected to physical violence, and I am rather tired of this sort of attitude towards us who are sitting here now, simply because most of us who sit here are quite inexperienced compared with the people who sit on the Front Bench there. But we are entitled, if we were only 20, to the privilege of discussing whether a Clause shall or shall not be added to the Bill, and especially so important a Clause as this, as to whether during all night sittings any set of men are in a fit condition to carry on legislation of this kind. That is a matter of opinion, but when you have got a brute force majority, such as the Government of to-day have got, we must put up with the position, and, personally, I do not complain about that a bit, but I do complain that you do not play the game. Playing the game is that, being stronger than us, you ought to give us more of the privileges of the House and not take some away, and I say I have reason to support this, because the thing that happened just now is something for which you will have to go back a long while to discover any precedent, and I hope my hon. Friends who are going to remain here to-night will not only fight this Bill line by line, but word by word, in order to teach the majority that if they want this sort of fighting, they shall have as much as we can possibly give.

Lord HUGH CECIL: On a point of Order. Is this discussion in order? It appears to be directed to reflecting on the action of the House in passing the Closure. I was always under the impression that the action of the House could not be commented upon in Debate.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is quite true. It is out of Order to pass censure on the House for what it has done, but I understood that the main attack of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) and of the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) was directed against the conduct of the Debate by the Minister.

Sir ALFRED MOND: I wish to support the Motion to report Progress on the
ground that I cannot understand why, on a Bill of very considerable complexity, which requires careful examination, and which has received no more but rather less consideration than similar measures in the past, we should be compelled night after night to sit up in order to proceed with the Measure to the exhaustion, both of the Ministers in charge and of the Members of this House. Belonging, as I do, to a small group which cannot work in relays— [Interruption.] It is impossible for us to arrange, like the other parties, for relays of Members to carry on the discussion. We have had a fairly long discussion on various Amendments to Clause 3, and the Minister himself, in the middle, accepted an Amendment which considerably modified the character of the Clause. We have taken no part in the discussions on the Amendments, reserving our right to speak on the Clause as a whole. It is a very drastic step taken by the Minister, after he himself has allowed an alteration in the Clause of that magnitude, not to allow any discussion, long or short, on the Clause itself. In view of his own action, surely that was an extraordinary procedure and one which seems very unnecessary when he reflects how much business he has got through since the House met on this Bill.
If I contrast the speed with which this Bill is going through with my recollections of the action of the party opposite when my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) was passing the National Health Insurance Bill, I know that at that time there was continuous obstructive opposition, not for a few days, but for weeks, and I think we have a serious right to complain that the Minister in charge of a Bill of this kind should endeavour to stifle discussion and to do a thing which I think is worse, and that is to drag on the Debates till a time in the morning when neither the House nor the country has the slightest opportunity of knowing what is going on. After all, we are dealing with a Measure which is affecting very large bodies of people outside who are deeply interested in every part of this Bill. They may not be following it in the detail with which we have to follow it, but after all they are following it, and therefore I think it is very remarkable indeed that the discussion should have to
be carried on under such conditions, for no reason that I can ascertain except possibly that we shall have a little earlier holiday. [Interruption.] The Noble Lord has not taken any part in the discussion on the Clauses of this Bill, and I do not see what right he has to object to anybody who takes a serious interest in the discussion protesting against this procedure.

Lord H. CECIL: I did not interrupt the right hon. Gentleman.

HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw.

Sir A. MOND: If the Noble Lord assures me that he did not interrupt me, I will at once withdraw what I said. I am not intervening to delay the Committee, but I only wanted to say, on behalf of those for whom I can speak, that we strongly oppose this action on the part of the Government.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My experience of this House is not so much as to enable me to compare the amount of discussion on this Bill with the amount of discussion that has taken place on measures in the past. But I have been here long enough to know that the criticisms and observations to which we have listened to-day are always made on a like occasion. I think hon. Members who have been desirous of taking part in the discussion will agree that we on the Government benches have listened with unexampled patience to a repetition of the same arguments, and there has been an extraordinary reluctance to use the closure.

Mr. SPENCER: On a point of order. Is the right hon. Gentleman in order, and is it not making a reflection on the Chair, to say that the arguments put forward have been a repetition? Is it not your duty, Captain Fitzroy, to see that order is kept by declaring whether or not there is repetition?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is in my keeping, and if I had exercised my right as often as I might have done I might get in the way of many speeches.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: We have done nothing that was not warranted by the circumstances. Having said that, I hope we shall now proceed to get on with the business.

Sir P. HASTINGS: I want to say only a word or two—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up!"]—because whatever else the Minister of Health may have to say on the debate I am quite sure that he cannot complain of any sort of obstruction, at least from the Front Opposition Bench. There has been absolutely none—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up!"]—I have been here during almost the whole of the debate to-night, and there has been very little intervention from the Front Bench. It must have been apparent, even to the Government, that Clause 3 was one upon which some general observations might have to be made. There were one or two-observations which we thought ought to be made which we kept in view of the Clause being moved, and which could have been referred to in a very few sentences which we thought and still think—were of very great importance. I cannot help thinking that it would at least have been courteous had some indication been given that there was to be no discussion on this Clause. If we had known that it might have been possible to put in a few of the more important sentences upon one of the Amendments. There was not a single Member on this Front Bench who had the slightest doubt but that the Clause was going to be debated. I imagine one would have to go back years for a precedent for moving the Clause without notice on a Bill without any Member of the Opposition having the opportunity to speak. Although I would be the last to suggest any intentional discourtesy on the part of the Government, certainly it is most regrettable, to my mind, that no indication at all was given that this Clause was going to be so adopted, in order that those who desired to say a few words, without in the slightest degree obstructing, should have the opportunity to do so.

Mr. MAXTON: I would like to support the motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley), who very kindly, and I think over charitably, excused the frame of mind of the Government on the ground that they were, perhaps, over-tired after the all-night exertions. That is an excessively charitable view to take. That the Government are confident of their sure majority; not merely have they the numbers, but they know that the Members behind them will make no protest, whatever violence is done to the traditions of the
House. I have not been long in the House, but sufficiently long to have seers occasions in other Parliaments when men on the Government side put the decencies of public debate above mere party considerations, believing that freedom of debate was an essential part of the Constitution, and that the fair treatment of a minority was also an essential part of the Constitution. Now the Government know that behind them there is a body of men who act as a machine, who will walk into the lobby and support them, however unjust and unfair is the proposal that is put forward. Not one element of sportsman ship with regard to the rights of minorities has yet been displayed by the members of the party on the other side. Hon and right hon. Members opposite are not displaying this attitude for the first time. When important issues were before the House and the House was entitled to argument, explanations and exposition from right hon. Gentlemen holding responsible Cabinet positions, we have been fobbed off with airy trivialities, with light jests, for they knew that any vapid remarks were sufficient to carry their band into the lobby and that they could rely on that great, stupid, unthinking force behind them. I use the word deliberately and advisedly, because where there is no sign of intelligence we are entitled to assume stupidity. Relying on that force, not the force of reason and of argument, upon which the whole principle of Parliamentary government is based, they have put reason and argument on one side and have adopted the method of force. They have used it on this occasion to closure a legitimate debate on an important matter affecting millions of people, in fact, affecting the whole population. I would like right hon. Gentlemen to understand that their numerical strength is not the last word, and that all the Standing Orders of this House cannot prevent an Opposition making its opposition effective, that all the majority on the other side cannot enable a Government to pass through legislation against an opposition that is absolutely unwilling and is determined in its objection to being forced. If I were leading this party to-night I would take care that not one other scrap of business was done inside this House tonight until its best traditions, the traditions of reason and argument, rather than the traditions of force and numbers, were allowed to operate.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: In these matters the lead should be taken by those who can lead, and I invite them to make the experiment now. The Minister of Health has left the House, and I am the last person to blame him for doing so because he has listened very patiently to our arguments, but I would like to point out that a good deal of the time of the Committee was taken up unnecessarily discussing an Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) which in the end she desired to withdraw.

Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: Yes, and after the Noble Lady had asked permission to withdraw her Amendment the Opposition obstructed by delivering five more speeches.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Hon. Members opposite should not complain of hon. Members on this side objecting to the withdrawal of an Amendment. In this particular case a very important question of principle was raised. I would remind hon. Members opposite that there is an organised system of absenteeism in operation on the Government side of the House and we are unable to organise a system of relays under which hon. Members opposite are being encouraged to neglect their Parliamentary duties. I think the country should know the way in which the Chief Government Whip thinks it desirable to use his steam roller majority because his supporters are not even on the premises to listen to our arguments. [An HON. MEMBER: "How do you know?"] I admit that a great deal of time was lost yesterday, and I am the last person to complain of freedom being given to the opposition, but it is quite a wrong thing afterwards to try to make up for lost time by artificially curtailing the Debate to-night.
I do not wish to question the Chairman's discretion in accepting this Motion if it is necessary to pass legislation of of this kind by such methods, but by this process we are doing a great disservice to those who will come under this Bill, and if mistakes are made in consequence great injury will be done to large bodies of people outside and it is unreasonable to expect hon. Members to keep on discussing a Bill of this nature night after night in the small hours of the morning.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: I want to join in the protest that has been made, and to say quite frankly that I am glad the Opposition Front Bench have at last appreciated the way in which this committee is being treated by the Government of the day. I was under the impression that we had been badly treated yesterday, and, if this protest had been made then by the Front Bench, the probability is that those who represent and speak for the Government would not have dared to move the Closure on a Clause without allowing any discussion to take place upon it. I want to draw your attention, Captain FitzRoy, to one outstanding feature of the Closure that was moved, and what it deprived the Committee of. The Committee had, until that time, been discussing verbal alterations in the Clause itself, and very large questions of principle were left untouched, because you, Sir, or Mr. Hope, had he been in the Chair, would have at once ruled out of Order any reference to such matters, since they were not covered by the Amendments which were on the Order Paper. As a consequence, these particular points were left absolutely untouched by any of the Members who spoke on the Amendments, and the feeling, naturally, was that these; wider points would have been touched upon when the Motion was made that the Clause stand part, and the Committee were free to discuss the Clause as a whole, and all that it portended to those who were to come within the scope of the Bill.
I submit that in moving the Closure the Government deprived Members of the Committee—not merely the official Opposition but those below the Gangway as well—of an opportunity of making their views clear as to what the Clause actually meant. I submit that the Opposition, whether it be a small Opposition like our Friends below the Gangway, or the larger Opposition above the Gangway, have a right, by being sent to this House, to express the point of view of those who sent them here, without being subjected to the gag as we have been during the night and again this afternoon. Every question that has been decided by a vote here has been preceded by a Closure Motion moved by some Member of the Government. Not one single Amendment
has been put to the Committee as a Question unless preceded by the Closure moved by Members of the Government. I submit that the Opposition have a right to discuss those questions which have been brought into this House by the Government. I put it to you, Sir, that you, in the capacity of Chairman, are the custodian of the right of all Members of the House, even of the private Member who may not be attached to any of the parties that are represented in the House. You, as the custodian of the privileges and rights of Members, will at once agree when I say that on a Bill of this highly controversial character containing, as it does, matters which could not have been submitted to the electorate so that they would have an opportunity of expressing their view upon the detailed effect it is going to have, the representatives of the people have a right to make their statement here without any fetters being placed upon them, without the gag being moved, without their liberties being shackled or their rights taken away by a Government who, believing that they have a 200 majority in the House, are prepared to run the steam roller over any opposition we may put up.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I indicated, in answer to a point of order by the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil) earlier in the Debate, that it was not open to Members to call in question the action taken by the Committee. The hon. Member is getting perilously near condemning the Committee for the action it took in passing the Closure.

Mr. MACLEAN: I am sorry if what I have said has misled you as to my meaning. What I wish you to understand is that we look upon you as the custodian of the liberties of Members of the House.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That may be so, but that does not affect the fact that criticism cannot be allowed at the time in Debate.

Mr. MACLEAN: I must again protest against the way in which I am being misunderstood. I am not calling in question your action in accepting the Motion for the Closure. What I am stating is that there are certain rights which Members are supposed to have, and the Chairman and the Speaker are the custodians of
the rights and privileges of all Members. That, surely, is not in any way challenging your right to accept the Closure. What I am stating is that no Government, because of a huge majority behind it, is entitled to use its power to move the Closure and force it through without a Debate taking place on the question.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member talks of forcing the Closure through. The Closure was applied by the action of the Committee, and it is not in order to censure the Committee for the action it has taken.

Mr. MACLEAN: I am censuring the conduct of the Government in having moved the Closure. I have been stating that all along. If Members care to vote for them that is their look out. If we vote against them that is our privilege. I submit that the Government is using its force as the Government and not as the House. I endorse entirely everything that has been said by the hon. Member for Bridgton (Mr. Maxton) with regard to what his action would be if certain contingencies are likely to arise. I am growing sick and tired of the dumb manner with which Members behind the Government treat everything that is put forward by their own side. Last night, on one of the questions that was voted upon, every back bencher who spoke expressed himself or herself as being in support of the principle which was advocated by Members on these benches who were pleading for the Amendment. When it came to the vote, although they would not speak on the question, and they showed by their interruptions that they were, or thought they were, as great humanitarians as we claim to be, and as much interested in the welfare of the poor for whom this Bill is supposed to cater—

Colonel Sir ARTHUR HOLBROOK: On a point of Order. Are we discussing last night's proceedings or to-night's?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: What the hon. and gallant Member is saying is not out of Order on this Motion.

Mr. MacLEAN: If the hon. Member would come oftener to the House he would understand the procedure. Hon. Members opposite, by their interruptions, expressed views favourable to the principle of that Amendment, but when it
came to a question of taking part in the debate they remained silent, and when it came to the vote they walked into the Lobby and voted against the very principle which, according to their interjections, they favoured. If that is the way in which hon. Members and right hon. Members opposite are going to carry out their views, and if the Government is going to use that blind loyalty and that unswerving devotion of the dumb, patient, driven oxen behind them, we, on these Benches, or some of us, are going to make as much trouble as we possibly can for the Government. We will keep them here. [Interruption.] We kept you out of your seat, anyhow.

Sir WILFRID SUGDEN: You did not do it.

Mr. MACLEAN: If the hon. Member likes, he can come outside. I want to protest against the constant interruptions by hon. Members, including the hon. Member for St. George's (Mr. Erskine), who represents the wealthy people.

Mr. ERSKINE: I have more poor people in my constituency than you know about.

Mr. MACLEAN: The hon. Member may have more poor people than I know of in his constituency, but I am certain that he does not represent them here.

Mr. ERSKINE: rose—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: In reply to a point of Order raised by the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Sir A. Holbrook) I said that the hon. Member was in Order, but he is not in Order in comparing the merits of various constituencies.

Mr. MACLEAN: The hon. Member for St. George's compared his constituency first by referring to the particular condition of his constituents, and I think I have a right to reply to an interjection of that kind.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must not be led away.

Mr. MACLEAN: I am not being led away. I am afraid that I led him away. If the Government continues what they have been doing to-night, I, and several others, will keep them going not only as
long as they are willing to stand it, but so long that the next Motion to report Progress and to go home and get some sleep will come from their side, and not from these Benches.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I am anxious to support this Motion to report Progress, not so much in the interests of the party to which I belong but in the interests of the Minister of Health himself. He is in for a, stormy time. He is riding two horses at once, and the saddle is becoming very dangerous. Morning after morning, week after week, month after month upstairs the right hon. Gentleman tries to ride one horse, and I am anxious that he shall have this Adjournment now in order that he may ride that horse upstairs more efficiently. We require the right hon. Gentleman at 11 o'clock to-morrow morning to have the best brains, to hear his arguments in order to protect His Majesty's Bill upstairs. I ask him, in the interests of those who have at the present time on their shoulders more than they can bear, to report Progress. I have had the good fortune to sit in this House for 20 years, and I have seen many Oppositions. No Government of the day ever brought forward a contentious Measure and hoped for one moment to get it through Committee as this Government is trying to do with this Bill. In every case the Government brought forward its Motion for the guillotine Closure of that measure in Committee. They even brought it forward for the Budget Hon. Members seem to have forgotten it. They assume that there is never going to be Opposition again; but these guillotine resolutions were introduced in the old days because the Opposition was vigorous and attentive to business, and would have kept the Government of that day up every night if they had not introduced a Closure Resolution to get through their business.
Do hon. Members opposite remember that the very fact that they have abrogated their functions as Members of Parliament makes it all the more incumbent on us, as an Opposition which has not abrogated its functions, to examine a Measure such as this with considerable care? At present we are complaining because the Government moved the Closure on Clause 3 without allowing the Clause to be discussed after it had been
modified. I ask the Committee to observe what that modification was.
The principal proviso in Clause 3 was, that a widow should be ruled out unless she had a child. I should be out of order in going into detail, but the qualifications originally in the Bill made the whole Clause absolutely trifling. We asked, when discussing the Amendment, what it would cost if these qualifications were wiped out, and we got no answer. In a measure like this in which finance is the whole thing, the Treasury has been unrepresented on that bench. I am speaking perfectly honestly when I say that I would sooner have the Chancellor of the Exchequer here watching the Bill, and let the Minister of Health have a holiday, so that he can be fit for his own proper Bill to-morrow. Neither the Chancellor of the Exchequer nor the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, has taken the trouble to come down, and when the Opposition asked the most pertinent question as to what would be the cost, we are not told. The representatives of the Government do not know.
12.0 M.
This particular Bill, more than any other Bill, should be discussed during hours when it can be reported. It is a Bill about which every one of my constituents wants to know. The first thing they ask is, "What can we do to get the pension? What does it cost? How do we get in?" I do not say that it is of enormous value that the country should read the criticism of the Opposition, but it is important that people should have the explanation of the Government so that they may know what the Bill does. Half the value of discussing any measure is the value derived by the public from the Government explanations. Everybody who has been on a Committee upstairs knows that. It is just as important in this House. People who are to benefit or who are not to benefit by this Bill cannot know what is in it. It is an extremely complicated and long Measure. Therefore it is supremely desirable that the explanations given by the Government and the information given to the public, should be given in a form and at a time which will enable the public to get that information. For all these reasons I trust that we shall carry the Motion. Ministers are overworked, a Treasury representative is not here, the
Opposition has been reasonable compared with Oppositions of the past. Hon. Members on this side have to do double duty, because there are so few of them, and because their duties have been surrendered by hon. Gentlemen opposite. Finally, in all my experience of the House, I have never known the Closure moved upon an amended Clause without a word of discussion being allowed on it.

Mr. HARNEY: I desire to enter my protest against the way in which this Debate is being conducted by the Government. Of course, if hon. Members opposite assume that anything that the Cabinet introduces is a perfect Measure, it is very annoying to them that the Opposition should take up time with criticism. That is exactly the attitude that has been taken up by the Government supporters from start to finish. During the two days that I have been sitting here listening to these debates, I have seen no attempt made by supporters of the Government to question anything that has been said. They have sat silent with resigned expressions on their faces. I want to know; can anyone here tell me?

Mr. DIXEY: I can!

Mr. HARNEY: What can you tell me? It is not much. As we know, it lies in a man's power to give an argument, but not to give an understanding.

Captain WATERHOUSE: The hon. and learned Member asks for arguments. I will give one. The first three Clauses of the 1911 Insurance Act went through in six hours and five minutes. The first three Clauses of this Bill have occupied 51 hours.

Mr. HARNEY: Here is a Bill that I undertake to say not 10 per cent of the hon. Members opposite understand. I have seldom known, while I have been in this House, any hon. Member who was capable of speaking intelligently on any subject, who was not under the strongest temptation to rise and speak. Hon. Members opposite seem to suffer from no such temptation. The inference is that they say to themselves, "We are in a strong majority. What our Government brings in ought to go through, and any-

body who dares to comment on it is a nuisance." Why should a serious Measure of this kind involving the interests both of the rich and the poor of this country—the poor because they are to receive benefits and the industrial rich because their businesses may be effected —be rushed through under the closure during the day while during the night an endeavour is made so to exhaust people that most of it may pass without any proper discussion. These night sittings are not very sensible. There is some slight justification for them if they are used to exhaust a flow of obstructive oratory but that has not been the case in this instance. As the last speaker has said, the most illuminating things—to the country—in the discussion of these complex Measures are the explanations given by Ministers on the Clauses. Under this kind of procedure none of these reaches the newspapers, because the newspaper representatives have more sense than we have and go to bed. I have read somewhere—I think the lines are by one of the Irish poets—that,
The best of all ways to lengthen one's days
Is to steal a few hours from the night, my dear.
That is all right in that mood, and for the purposes of the appropriate pursuit, but never until I joined the House of Commons have I known a sane body of men who pretended to be seriously doing business openly and glaringly keeping these hours which on other occasions we try to deny that we ever keep, on the pretext that they are really doing business. The style of stuff with which we are going on now is just—[Interruption]—the style of thing with which we are going on with now, and in which I willingly acknowledge I am playing a part, is quite worthy of a moment when most of our intelligence is reposing in the arms of Morpheus.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, That the Question be now put.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 216; Noes, 110.

Division No. 243.]
AYES.
[12.10 a.m.


Agg-Gardner. Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Astor, Viscountess


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Atkinson, C.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Ashmead-Bartlett, E.
Balfour, George (Hampstead)


Balniel, Lord
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Raine, W.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Ramsden, E.


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Bad.)
Rees, Sir Beddoe


Bonn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Hammersley, S. S.
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)


Bethell, A.
Hanbury, C.
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Reiner, J. R.


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Haslam, Henry C.
Rentoul, G. S.


Blundell, F. N.
Hawke, John Anthony
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Rice, Sir Frederick


Bowyer. Capt. G. E. W.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.


Brass, Captain W.
Hilton, Cecil
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Rye, F. G.


Briggs, J. Harold
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St. Marylebone)
Salmon, Major I.


Briscoe, Richard George
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Brittain, Sir Harry
Holt, Capt. H. P.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Homan, C. W. J.
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Sandon, Lord


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Savory, S. S.


Burman, J. B.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R.(Prtsmth. S.)
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Witts, Westb'y)


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Sheffield Sir Berkeley


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Jacob, A. E.
Shepperson, E. W.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Jephcott, A. R.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfst)


Chilcott, Sir Warden
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Skelton, A. N.


Christie, J. A.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Col. George R.
Smithers, Waldron


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Cooper, A. Duff
Loder, J. de V.
Spender Clay, Colonel H.


Cope, Major William
Lougher, L.
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F.(Will'sden, E.)


Couper, J. B.
Lynn, Sir R. J.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
MacAndrew, Charles Glen
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Strickland, Sir Gerald


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Macintyre, I.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
McLean, Major A.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Sugden, Sir Wilfred


Dalkeith, Earl of
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Tasker, Major R. Inigo


Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Margesson, Captain D.
Templeton, W. P.


Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)
Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S)
Meyer, Sir Frank
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Tinne, J. A.


Dixey, A. C.
Moles, Thomas
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Doyle, Sir N. Grattan
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Duckworth, John
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut. Col. J. T. C.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Morden, Col. W. Grant
Warrender, Sir Victor


Elliot, Captain Walter E.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


England, Colonel A.
Murchison, C. K.
Wells, S. R.


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Nelson, Sir Frank
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Neville, R. J.
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple


Everard, W. Lindsay
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Nuttall, Ellis
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Oakley, T.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Fermoy, Lord
O'Connor. T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Fielden, E. B.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Wise, Sir Fredric


Finburgh, S.
Ormsby-Gore. Hon. William
Wolmer, Viscount


Fleming, D. P.
Penny, Frederick George
Womersley, W. J.


Ford, P. J.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Fraser, Captain Ian
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).


Fremantle, Lieut. Colonel Francis E.
Philipson, Mabel
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Gadie, Lieut.-Colonel Anthony
Pielou, D. P.
Wragg, Herbert


Ganzoni, Sir John
Power, Sir John Cecil



Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Goff, Sir Park
Preston, William
Major Hennessy and Capt. D.


Grace, John
Price, Major C. W. M.
Hacking.


Grotrian, H. Brent




NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Bromfield, William
Fenby, T. D.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Buchanan, G.
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Cape, Thomas
Greenall, T.


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Clowes, S.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Groves, T.


Barr, J.
Connolly, M.
Grundy, T. W.


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Day, Colonel Harry
Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Duncan, C.
Hall, Fredk. (Yorks, Normanton)


Broad, F. A.
Dunnico, H.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)




Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Murnin, H.
Taylor, R. A.


Harney, E. A.
Naylor, T. E.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Harris, Percy A.
Palln, John Henry
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Paling, W.
Thurtle, E.


Hastings, Sir Patrick
Ponsonby, Arthur
Tinker, John Joseph


Hayday, Arthur
Potts, John S.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Hayes, John Henry
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Varley, Frank B.


Hirst, G. H.
Riley, Ben
Viant, S. P.


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Ritson, J.
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W. Bromwich)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Rose, Frank H.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Saklatvala, Shapurji
Welsh, J. C.


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Scrymgeour, E.
Westwood, J.


Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Scurr, John
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Whiteley, W.


Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Slivertown)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Sitch, Charles H.
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Kelly, W. T.
Smillie, Robert
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Kennedy, T.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Kirkwood, D.
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Lansbury, George
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Windsor, Walter


Lawson, John James
Snell, Harry
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Lee, F.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Livingstone, A. M.
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. A.


Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Stephen, Campbell
Barnes.


Maxton, James
Sutton, J. E.

Question put accordingly, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 112; Noes, 212.

Division No. 244.]
AYES.
[12.15 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Adamson, w. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Smillie, Robert


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Smith, Ronnie (Penistone)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Snell, Harry


Barr, J.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Stephen, Campbell


Broad, F. A.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Sutton, J. E.


Bromfield, William
Kelly, W. T.
Taylor. R. A.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Kennedy, T.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Buchanan, G.
Kirkwood, D.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Cape, Thomas
Lansbury, George
Thurtle, E.


Clowes, S.
Lawson, John James
Tinker, John Joseph


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R
Lee, F.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Connolly, M.
Livingstone, A. M.
Varley, Frank B.


Day, Colonel Harry
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Viant, S. P.


Duncan, C.
Waxton, James
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Dunnico, H.
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Fenby, T. D.
Murnin, H.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Naylor, T. E.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Palin, John Henry
Welsh, J. C.


Greenall, T.
Paling, W.
Westwood, J.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Groves, T.
Potts, John S.
Whiteley, W.


Grundy, T. W.
Rees, Sir Beddoe
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Riley, Ben
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Ritson, J.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Harney, E. A.
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Harris, Percy A.
Rose, Frank H.
Windsor, Walter


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Saklatvala, Shapurji
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hastings, Sir Patrick
Scrymgeour, E.



Hayday, Arthur
Scurr, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hayes, John Henry
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. A.


Hirst, G. H.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Barnes.


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Sitch, Charles H.



NOES.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Astor, Viscountess
Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Atkinson, C.
Bethell, A.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Birchall, Major J. Dearman


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Balniel, Lord
Blades, Sir George Rowland


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Blundell, F. N.


Ashmead-Bartlett, E.
Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Hammersley, S. S.
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Hanbury, C.
Remer, J. B.


Brass, Captain W.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Rentoul, G. S.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Haslam, Henry C.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Briggs, J. Harold
Hawke, John Anthony
Rice, Sir Frederick


Briscoe, Richard George
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Brittain, Sir Harry
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Herbert, S.(York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Hilton, Cecil
Rye, F. G.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Salmon, Major I.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Burman, J. B.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Holt, Capt. H. P.
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Homan, C. W. J.
Sandon, Lord


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.)
Savery, S. S.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)


Chilcott, Sir Warden
Hume, Sir G. H.
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)


Christie, J. A.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Jacob, A. E.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Jephcott, A. R.
Shepperson, E. W.


Cooper, A. Duff
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfst)


Cope, Major William
Knox, Sir Alfred
Skelton, A. N.


Couper, J. B.
Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Col. George R.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Smithers, Waldron


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.
Loder J. de V.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Lougher, L.
Spender Clay, Colonel H.


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Lynn, Sir R. J.
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)
MacAndrew, Charles Glen
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Macintyre, I.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Dalkeith, Earl of
McLean, Major A.
Strickland, Sir Gerald


Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Margesson, Captain D.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Dawson, Sir Philip
Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Dixey, A. C.
Meyer, Sir Frank
Tasker, Major R. Inigo


Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Templeton, W. P.


Doyle, Sir N. Grattan
Moles, Thomas
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Duckworth, John
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Tinne, J. A.


Elliot, Captain Walter E.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


England, Colonel A.
Morden, Col. W. Grant
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Murchison, C. K.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Everard, W. Lindsay
Nelson, Sir Frank
Warrender, Sir Victor


Fairfax. Captain J. G.
Neville, R. J.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Wells, S. R.


Fermoy, Lord
Nuttall, Ellis
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Fielden, E. B.
Oakley, T.
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple


Finburgh, S.
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Fleming, D. P.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Ford, P. J.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Penny, Frederick George
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Fraser, Captain Ian
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Wise, Sir Fredric


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Wolmer, Viscount


Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Womersley, W. J.


Ganzoni, Sir John
Philipson, Mabel
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Pielou, D. P.
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Goff, Sir Park
Power, Sir John Cecil
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Grace, John
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Wragg, Herbert


Grotrian, H. Brent
Preston, William



Gunston, Captain D. W.
Price, Major C. W. M.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Raine, W.
Major Hennessy and Captain


Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)
Ramsden, E.
Douglas Hacking.


Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)

CLAUSE 4.—(Orphans' pensions.)

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 3, lines 40 and 41, to leave out the words "his death" and to insert instead thereof the words
she had become entitled to a widow's pension.
This is a purely drafting amendment to prevent possible misunderstanding of our intentions. The Clause is intended to cover the case of the illegitimate child who is living with its mother and its mother's
husband. The first part of Sub-clause (2) deals with the case where the mother of the child survives her husband and becomes a widow. The second part of the Sub-clause deals with the case where the husband survives the mother of the child. The words originally in the Bill were
Where the wife of a man has predeceased him and if she had survived him and died immediately after his death, an orphan's pension would have been … payable.
It has been suggested that if a woman died immediately after the death of her husband it might be said that she never became entitled to a widow's pension, and therefore never entitled to the additional allowance, and in order to avoid that and make clear that that was not intended, it is proposed to leave out the words "his death" and to insert the words
she had become entitled to a widow's pension"—
when automatically, of course, the additional allowance would be given.

Mr. R. DAVIES: I am glad the right hon. Gentleman has endeavoured to make the Amendment clear. To me the Clause is perplexing. In the first place, under Sub-section (a) we deal with the case of the man, a widower, who dies, after the commencement of this Act and is insured at that date. Where his child becomes an orphan after the commencement of this Act, that orphan is entitled to the allowance under this scheme. Then we pass on to (b). The case there seems to be quite clear too, that where the widow dies after the commencement of this Act her child, who becomes an orphan, is entitled to an allowance under this scheme. I want to ask the Minister of Health or the Attorney-General this question: How comes it about that where the father has been insured under the National Health Insurance Scheme ever since 1912 and both the father and the mother die in 1925 and leave, say, three or four orphans, that those orphans are without any allowance at all, though the orphans of a man who dies immediately after the commencement of this Act are entitled to an allowance under this Act? I put the point because it seems to me that where a child becomes an orphan, say, in the middle of January 1926, he will be in receipt of an allowance under this scheme, although no contributions have been paid in respect of him, except contributions paid by the father or mother as the case may be, under the National Health Insurance Scheme. What I want to make clear is this; that I do not like the dividing line, because where a child becomes an orphan in the early part of 1926, it becomes entitled to an allowance, but the child which becomes an orphan just prior to the end of this year is left
without any allowance at all, although the father's contributions have been paid since 1912. I must confess that the Amendment moved by the Attorney-General makes the position a little clearer, but I would like the Minister of Health to explain to us why there is a distinction between these two cases. I do not know that I need repeat the statemen I have made, but in my view the clear cut between December of this year and January of next year does not warrant the distinction of non-payment to the orphans whose parents died this year and the orphans whose parents die immediately after the commencement of this Bill. The Minister of Health, in introducing a scheme of this kind, ought to meet such anomalies. I hope I have made my point clear; if not, I will try again.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Will the hon. Member say to what Clause he refers as the one which makes the distinction between December of this year and January of next year?

Mr. DAVIES: I am speaking of the whole of Clause 4.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: If the hon. Member will allow me to explain, I will do so. The Clause which gives the orphan existing before 1926 a pension is Clause 18. The hon. Gentleman will see, if he looks at that Clause, that it does give a pension. It is the Clause which gives orphans the right to a pension whether they become orphans after the commencement of the Act or not, and the only point to my mind is to make it clear that nothing prevents the mother becoming entitled to it.

Mr. DAVIES: If Members of the Committee will turn to Clause 3, they will see that it deals with widows' pensions. Clause 4 deals with orphans' pensions and Clause 5 with widows' and orphans' pensions. Then there are special provisions in Clause 6 as to additional allowances for widows and children. As far as we have gone we have only touched the question of orphans' pensions and I wanted it made clear that the point I raised was covered either by the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment or by paragraphs (a) and (b) of Clause 4. If Clause 18 covers it, I shall be satisfied. What I want to make clear is that a child who becomes an orphan before this Bill—

The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Gentleman will look at the marginal note to Clause 18 he will see that it makes it quite clear that the point is dealt with satisfactorily.

Mr. JOHN BAKER: I would like to ask the Attorney-General if it is necessary for the mother of this illegitimate child to be an insured person?

The CHAIRMAN: There is nothing about an illegitimate child in this Amendment.

Mr. BAKER: I may be wrong but I understood the Amendment referred to that.

The CHAIRMAN: That was the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Harney).

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: This does include and is intended to include the illegitimate children of a woman who married a husband but may or may not be regarded as legitimate children. It covers the illegitimate child of a woman who has married an insured man.

Miss WILKINSON: Does not the child qualify on the woman's insurance. Why does the man come in in that case?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: There are cases where the woman is not insured and the husband is.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 5.—(Statutory conditions as to widows' and orphans' pensions.)

Mr. R. DAVIES: I beg to move, in page 4, line 7, to leave out the words "one hundred and four" and to insert instead thereof the word "twenty-six."
In moving this Amendment I am sure the Committee will agree with me when I say that I am dealing with what is a very important subject. Not only does this point deal with the financial transactions of the Bill but it is intended that persons will be brought within the scope of the scheme who are excluded by the Bill as it stands. Clause 5 deals with the statutory conditions to be complied with in the case of a person in respect of whose insurance 104 weeks have elapsed and 104
contributions have been paid. I always thought, when I listened to the speeches of the Minister of Health and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, that it was the desire that all conceivable types of cases that had been connected at any time with National Health Insurance should be brought within the scope of this scheme. That is to say, the Government were very anxious to include within the four corners of this scheme all types of cases touched at any time by National Health Insurance. The Minister knows that there are thousands of cases —I do not exaggerate when I say there are hundreds of thousands of people— who have passed through National Health Insurance, but have gone out of the scheme and cannot come in again under Clause 5 if it passes as it stands. I can quote my own case, but am not arguing in order to bring myself within the scheme. In 1912 I was compulsorily insured, because my income was below £160 per annum. Fortunately for me, after I had paid 30 contributions under the insurance scheme, my income increased beyond that rate. Later on there was an Amendment passed to the National Health Insurance Act which increased the income limit from £160 per annum to £250 per annum and the income limit at this moment in respect of non-manual workers is £250 per annum or £4 16s. 2d. per week. Non-manual workers in receipt of an income above that automatically fall out of the insurance scheme. The Minister of Health will appreciate that there are thousands of cases like my own. There may be other Members of this House who have passed through the Health Insurance scheme who were not for two years continuously insured; and be cause they fall short of 104 contributions they will not be entitled, if they desire to become voluntary contributors under this new scheme, to do so.
The point I desire to make is this: I cannot see what connection there is between the benefits under the pensions scheme and the contributions that are paid in respect of insured persons under the National Health Insurance scheme Suppose a man was compulsorily insured in July, 1912, the date when the National Health Insurance scheme became operative. Up to 1914 he would have
paid 104 contributions. He then fell out of the scheme and has never paid a penny since. He may come under the new scheme as a voluntary contributor. I cannot see how the new benefits are to be affected by contributions paid during the years 1912 to 1914. If there is no connection at all between the payment of those contributions for two years and the benefits paid under the new scheme, then I say that any person, no matter how long he may have been connected with National Health Insurance, ought to be capable of coming in under this scheme as a voluntary contributor if he desires to do so. It will be very difficult —I am sure the Committee will appreciate the point—for an approved society to find out whether a person has paid 104 contributions under the old scheme, and I am sure that the Minister and the approved societies will find themselves in a quandary in marking certain that persons who apply for membership under this scheme have passed through an approved society. This book which shows 104 contributions is really of no value at all in this connection, and the person who has paid 26 contributions under the National Health scheme ought to be included as a voluntary contributor under this scheme. That is the object of the Amendment. The actuarial calculations of the scheme will not be disturbed in the least if it is carried. We have appealed many times to the Government for some concession, but so far we have had hardly any at all. This proposal is put forward without any political spleen, and solely because some of us who will have to administer it are anxious that the scheme should work easily when it is the law of the land. I hope the Government will be able to meet us on this point.

Mr. J. BAKER: I desire to ask one or two questions on this point. The first is this: Are the contributions referred to contributions under this Bill or under the National Health Insurance Act? Further, how can an exempted person qualify under this 104 weeks, seeing that an exempted person could not have paid any contributions at all!

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I quite accept the hon. Member's suggestion that this Amendment is not proposed because
of any political spleen. I think he has mixed up two different things. In the Clause we are discussing a provision is laid down under which a person is entitled to a widow's or an orphan's pension. It is not a Clause which deals with the rights of persons to become voluntary contributors. It is true that when we come to voluntary contributors he will find a similar Clause—Clause 18. This Clause applies to every person who is insured under the Bill and it lays down that the statutory conditions to be complied with in order to render widows' and orphans' pensions payable shall be that a certain number of contributions have been paid. The number we have taken is 104, and it is taken word for word from the National Insurance Act. It will not be disputed that the benefits are more valuable than those given under the National Health Insurance Act. We have taken what we think is a reasonable amount laid down in the Act of 1911, an Act which has worked satisfactorily for 14 years past.

Mr. R. DAVIES: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentlemen for his explanation. I quite see his point, but my difficulty is this. If we allow Clause 5 to pass without an explanation as to its meaning, when we come to Clause 13 I am afraid, having passed Clause 5, we shall be in a difficulty as to securing our rights in the later Clause. The statutory conditions refer to widows' and orphans' pensions. I am wondering whether children who are not orphans come in here at all. Why are they excluded from this Clause?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Those are additional allowances which are given with widows' pensions under Clause 1 and therefore it does not require a special mention of them here.

Mr. BECKETT: I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman opposite to give this Amendment very sincere consideration; and for this reason. Since yesterday this Measure has become, not merely a Bill dealing with a Measure of social reform, but, in view of the efforts of the Minister of Health to lighten the burdens of industry, it has become a Bill which threatens to make very heavy demands upon some of the most sorely stricken areas of the country. Unless the Bill is so framed that it begins at once to lighten the terrible burdens which the ratepayers
in these districts are bearing there is an imminent danger of a complete breakdown of the local government machinery. By accepting this Amendment, by making it somewhat easier for persons who have recently been insured under another scheme to benefit by his new scheme, by somewhat hastening the time in which the insured person will secure benefit, the right hon. Gentleman will be going some way to assist those many areas and local authorities in the country, such as we have in my own constituency, in Middlesbrough, and many parts of the north of England, Scotland and Wales. The position in those areas is terribly serious, and if this Amendment is accepted it will go some way towards enabling us to bear the additional burdens the Minister of Labour is placing upon us. We really do not know how we are going to face these burdens unless he makes some concession.

Miss WILKINSON: It is when we come to detailed Amendments like this— going into the most intricate detail-that you realise how very difficult it is to administer this business on the ordinary plan which proved perfectly successful in the National Health Insurance Scheme. When you were dealing with the scheme, you were asking individuals to insure a risk—against ill-health and accident—a risk that was definitely going to happen to the person that was insured. Therefore it was perfectly reasonable to suggest that the insured person should create for himself a reserve and that out of that reserve various benefits should be paid. If we were dealing with that type of case, obviously it would be perfectly reasonable to ask that 104 contributions should be paid in order to make up that reserve. But the Government, by insistence on making this widows' pension scheme a contributory scheme, are continually being brought up against contradictions. Here you are trying to carry out a scheme which shall provide for the widow and her children, which shall take them off the Poor Law and which shall give the children a start in life. A miserable sum is provided for that, but that, I take it, is the idea behind the whole scheme. Having got that, they are then faced with the position of the widow who had got young children and never had a chance to create a reserve under such a
provision as paragraph (a) of this Clause. Therefore they bring that woman into the Bill on a non-contributory basis. They do not ask her to go through the conditions that are laid down by this paragraph (a). Having recognised that a non-contributory basis was the only way in which to deal with these unfortunate widows, they then have to come to the position of the woman who is left a widow after this Bill has been passed.
I am going to ask the Attorney-General what is the position of the woman whose husband is insured, but who has only paid 26 contributions? It is not everybody who comes into insurance at the age of 16. Persons may come into insured trades after they have spent a considerable amount of time in an uninsurable occupation. Then they come in after the Bill has been passed. They have less than 104 contributions since the date of the person's entering into insurance, because previous to that time they were in uninsurable occupations. Under present conditions of unemployment, there is a continual drift from one trade to another. People who are unfortunately thrown out of work try very hard to get jobs in any occupation. They may come to be insured, but they have not 104 contributions since the date of that entrance, because from the age of 16 until, say, 30, they were not in an occupation in which they could be insured. What is going to happen to that widow? You say she has not created a reserve. Neither has a reserve been created on behalf of the other widow. You are going to have a considerable number of cases of people who cannot qualify under this paragraph (a). What is the position of those who enter into insurance and cannot, although they are adults, qualify under paragraph (a)? This is the second position which is going to be created by this paragraph (a), and if we are going to have these women insured they have got to be dealt with in some other way. It is perfectly true they can go to the Poor Law. It is equally true, as has been frequently said, that they will possibly get considerably more from the Poor Law than they will get out of this scheme, but the point still remains.
1.0 A.M.
Suppose they have paid 100 contributions—almost the amount under the scheme. We know how rigid the law can be when it is trying to get money out of
people. You have this unfortunate man who has only paid 100 contributions. He dies, and his widow has to go to the Poor Law, although the woman living next door, whose man may have been the victim of the same accident, gets a pension for herself for life and for her children. The first woman, for the trifling deficiency of 1s. 4d.—for a few pence—is left unprovided for. The Attorney-General, with that agility of mind which is as much one of his characteristics as his courtesy of manner, may say you have the same position if you have 26 contributions. That is perfectly true. But, obviously, the risk is smaller. I cannot see why you should not have this qualifying Clause at all. You say you must have reserves, but I have already pointed out that the bottom has been knocked out of that by the fact of the inclusion of so many of these pre-war widows. Hon. Members on the Government benches are continually quoting the National Health Insurance Act as a precedent for every one of these Clauses. I believe they are wrong in quoting that as a precedent, for two reasons. First of all, when the National Health Insurance Act was passed, and when you had this Clause, the position, as stated over and over again at that time, was that you were beginning an entirely new experiment in insurance in this country, and therefore it might well be argued that you had to have such enormous reserves as suggested in this Clause. But, if not on this Clause, on a previous Clause when the Minister of Health was speaking to our Amendment in regard to disablement benefits and so on, he pointed out that under National Health Insurance disablement benefits have now been increased to 20s. That is true, but what does that prove? The National Health Insurance scheme was admittedly an experiment that had never yet been tried, about which people had no knowledge. What is the result of that experiment? They have found that these enormous reserves were, as a matter of fact, not necessary, that people had been asked to pay far more than was needed under the Scheme, and it is because of that that they are able to increase the benefits enormously. If we had any guarantee from the Minister of Health that we were likely to increase
the benefits in future to something like a reasonable amount that would enable a widow to bring up her children properly, we could see some sense in this paragraph (a), but we have no such suggestion at all. All we have is this amount that is to be paid.
Therefore we suggest that this Clause, as a matter of fact, is making exactly the same mistake as National Health Insurance made. It is asking for too much; it is making far too great a reserve. I cannot see why hon. Members opposite should be continually quoting National Health Insurance as though it were sacrosanct and as though it were in some way perfect, when it is admittedly experimental. Therefore, I suggest that these 104 contributions are far too many, and since the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend is merely to reduce the 104 contributions mentioned in this Clause to 26, it would be very much better if the Attorney-General or the Minister of Health accepted it—accepted it because of the experience they have gained under National Health Insurance, and accepted it on the still more important ground that it is necessary that these widows and children should be provided for. We want these people who are not provided for under the provisions for the pre-Act widow and those people who are not lucky enough to have got 104 contributions—we want these people provided for. It is not a question about their husbands; it is a question that they have got to live. I am going to ask the Minister of Health to consider the position of the woman who is going to meet the board of guardians and who, because of some technical flaw, and because there are not quite 104 contributions, has to explain this matter to a none too sympathetic board of guardians. What is going to be the position? "Why did not your husband do this, that and the other; why was your husband not insured; why did you not see he got an insurable occupation before he died?" It may seem that those are ridiculous questions to ask, but they are very much more sensible than very many of the questions that are asked by reactionary boards of guardians that are dominated by the friends of the party opposite. I therefore feel very concerned about these people. They must be provided for somewhere, and I suggest that this Amendment ought to be accepted.

Mr. SAKLATVALA: I beg to support the Amendment. I may point cut that the objection to this limit of 104 contributions is not merely on the strength of it being numerically too many weeks or months, but I submit that it entirely destroys what the Bill aims to be—namely, an insurance scheme. I have had the feeling from the first that this was not a bona fide insurance scheme at all. It was in the manner of a "put-and take" game, and like all "put-and-take" games, against the working class: they are expected to put in more and take out less. We have had pointed out to us the example of National Health Insurance. All first experiments are generally failures, and because there was some erroneous step taken in one Act it does not necessarily follow that we should do the same again. Between that time and now the chances of sudden death have considerably increased. Apart from street accidents, factory accidents, and mine accidents, everything that goes to impair the constitution and physique of the workmen is now in operation—low wages, periods of unemployment, anxiety, the hardships of life—and I submit in all seriousness that the chances of death to-day are far larger than in the days when the National Health Insurance scheme was contemplated. If this is an insurance scheme, why should it be different from other insurance schemes to which the more fortunate people in the country can resort? In that respect it should be a good parallel to the ordinary insurance scheme, without these harsh measures or these invidious distinctions between the two insurance parties. Surely persons insuring life and even property in the ordinary course of events insure against accidents or against destruction which may take place at any moment. That is the chief purpose of insurance. There is no set calculation about it. It is exactly to insure yourself against an event which you cannot foresee, and which you yourselves are not responsible for, and are not expected to bring about. That is insurance. That is the insurance which the well-to-do people take advantage of every day of their lives. That is the scheme under which ordinary property is insured. If a property is insured at a given hour it may just pay one premium before it is destroyed by fire or damaged in some other way, and the insured
amount is immediately paid, so also the ordinary life insurance, and that is the spirit of insurance. That is the one factor which makes insurance insurance. If there is a calculation attached to it that a certain period should elapse and a certain number of payments should be made, it destroys the fundamental scheme of insurance which insures you against unforeseen circumstances. In a case like this, especially the death of the breadwinner of a young family, to bring in this discriminating Clause and to put the people to a disadvantage as against the rich people, after giving them false hopes of what the State is doing for less fortunate people, what the more fortunate can do themselves, is hardly fair play towards the working classes at all.
I certainly agree that mathematical arguments that can be applied to 104 weeks can be applied to 26. There is one reason for fixing some sort of a nominal time limit or payment limit. It is quite possible, as things develop in ordinary life, that if no time limit were fixed, there would be questions raised and arguments raised that a person was in a position to anticipate death and to insure at a time within a few days or weeks before his coming death, to avoid the raising of such arguments and remove any such suspicion. It might be fixed when every medical man and others, men of the world, might be quite sure that 26 weeks do provide more than the minimum reasonable limit against any such malpractice. But to go beyond that and to fix a money limit, and provide against unforeseen and sudden events, is altogether contrary to the very spirit of insurance and is playing falsely towards those citizens whom the State promises what their economic conditions do not permit them to do. After all, the position generally works round to the scheme being made contributory when the Government have all along the idea that it cannot work as a decent scheme and a contributory scheme at the same time. They have got to make it a contributory scheme in their desire to put forward a scheme for electioneering purposes without its being really a sound financial scheme. When they make it a contributory scheme, they now discovered they cannot give that protection. That is where one feels that the whole plan of insurance is nullified and frustrated by Clauses of this nature.
I would also ask the Government that even with their limited outlook of human life, of the working classes, if they want to be fair and honest as the business men they always claim to be I put it to them that the very principle of common honesty to the working classes is ignored by this limit of 104 contributions. If the rich man can insure his life and property without such a limit and get his benefit after one single contribution why should the poor, honest, hard-working man be compelled to submit to such an unnatural scheme of insurance. Apart from human life if a fire insurance company put forward such a scheme or a marine insurance company put forward such a scheme that unless so many premiums had been paid no money would be paid towards the loss of property, I am sure that every Member on the opposite side would rise in uproar at this atrocious intimation in an insurance scheme and would say "the whole thing is a farce," and condemn it as no insurance scheme at all, and find ways and means of supporting private schemes of their own. They would not call it a bona fide insurance scheme if it were arranged to-morrow for any new property to be erected or a house built and destroyed by fire or aircraft and suffered that damage after a first premium was paid that the insurance company was not liable unless 100 premiums or a two year's period had elapsed. I am perfectly sure the hon. Gentleman who values property and wealth more than human life would see in his conscience that this is not a sound insurance scheme. They would at once realise it and visualise it that it does not afford protection against sudden and unforeseen calamity and they would condemn it as an insurance scheme. Then there is the question of land, or money or property.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I would warn the hon. Member that he cannot keep on repeating himself over and over again.

Mr. SAKLATVALA: I accept your ruling. With regard to this scheme, if the Government honestly mean it to be a life insurance scheme, they should realise that on the death of a person, which is not brought about, premeditated, and deliberately by the insured person' for the purpose of deceiving the State, the
money becomes due and ought to be paid just as much after a few contributions as after the payment of many contributions. If it is to be an honest insurance scheme that ought to be provided for. When the Government were preparing this Act and the Budget they were thinking of the next election and not of the insured persons and human life. The Government themselves are aware of it. That is why they carry Closure after Closure. But now, here in the Committee stage, when we are deliberating on it and pointing out to the Government that because there was a previous figure of 104 weeks, it does not follow that this figure is also to be 104 weeks, and we put to the Government the points that they failed to consider. 1s it really too much to expect them to consider it and be bold enough to say that the limit we fixed arbitrarily and can be brought down to a period of 26 weeks? With regard to the application of the whole scheme, as the hon. Member for East Middlesbrough (Miss Wilkinson) also pointed out, after all, the country is not going to escape payment in some shape or another, but there is going to be one great difficulty, that the payment coming from this scheme after the unforeseen death to the person is to be of quite a different character from the payment a widow will secure through other sources available to her. It is not merely the misery and assistance attached to those sources of assistance given her but the stigma, the inferior moral conception and everything associated with that system of assistance which unfortunately prevails at the present moment. That could be removed partly, if not entirely, by making this Clause a little more reasonable than as it stands now. Had the Government, in following the original natioral scheme, put forward any actuarial figures to us and pointed out that so many deaths would have occurred before 104 contributions had been paid and the whole country overweighted with a ruinous amount, one could then have felt that the Government were entering into that calculaion, but here we see the Government have entered into no such calculations and have no figures at their disposal as to what would have happened for 104 weeks or 102 weeks. They see a faulty Clause and take it on. They have not even considered the factor of the risks in work, the risks of going to work,
the risk of merely crossing the road going to work. The risks to human life are far greater to-day than a few years ago, and the Government have entirely ignored that point.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I must ask the hon. Member again not to repeat himself or I must ask him to resume his seat.

Mr. SAKLATVALA: I am making my final appeal to the Government that, bearing in mind the various points of consideration not in front of them when they framed this Clause, instead of flippantly casting them aside as coming from the enemy, they should put the matter right.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I do not propose to take up time by rearguing this point but I do want to answer the questions that show real anxiety raised by the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. Beckett) and the hon. Member for East Middlesbrough (Miss Wilkinson). They were both concerned about the position of the widows whose husbands died shortly after this scheme came into operation when less than two years had elapsed from the appointed date—January, 1926. The contributions here included are inclusive of contributions under the Health Insurance Act, so that, for instance, suppose a man insured for two years died in the first week of January, 1926, his widow would be entitled to a pension, because he would have contributed the 104 contributions by aggregating those paid under the Health Insurance Act before this scheme came into operation and the total insurance payment when the scheme began to operate. The 104 contributions need not be consecutive.

Miss WILKINSON: I quite recognise that, but the point I wish to put is that suppose you had a man who for 10 years had been employed in an uninsurable occupation or had been getting more than £250 a year, suppose he then comes within the insurance scheme and has paid only 30 contributions and has never been insured before and has only paid 30 contributions since he entered the insurance, what then is his position?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: If any person has paid the 104 contributions, then he has fulfilled the necessary qualifications. There is to be an aggregate
of 104 contributions and they need not be consecutive.

Miss WILKINSON: The position then is that a man who may have paid 100 contributions since his entry into insurance, owing to these reasons, his widow with children will be in a worse position than a widow left a widow previous to the Act who has not paid into the widows pension fund insurance at all.

Mr. BECKETT: I am much obliged to the Attorney-General. The point I had in mind was not the gap period between insurance, but the necessity for speeding up the assistance that will come to local authorities under this scheme by reducing the number of weeks of people who paid 30 weeks.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: The explanation of the Attorney-General rather emphasises the necessity for the right hon. Gentleman accepting this Amendment, the more so perhaps at this moment than at any other time over a period of very many years. It must be well known that the unemployment problem leads to change of occupation, the general changes that are taking place from Land's End to John o' Groats, and the necessity for the removal of men from their previous occupations, to new occupations through no fault of their own. If this pension scheme is devised to provide pensions in certain cases, it seems to me that if this limiting paragraph is going to be carried through in its present form, then quite a large number of people who otherwise are entitled to any benefits that may be forthcoming under the scheme are going to be deprived of what should be regarded as their legitimate payment in case of need. The hon. Member for East Middlesbrough (Mrs. Wilkinson) put a very definite case of an individual through no fault of his own during the present year having to change his occupation from an uninsurable to an insurable occupation. For instance, by the time the insurance scheme commences and pensions are payable should he pass away before he has paid 104 contributions, then his widow and orphans, should there be any, are to be deprived of any benefits. It seems to me that while the right hon. Gentleman must have a line of demarcation he must say where he must start and where he must stop, it is obvious that in
cases of this description they should be catered for, since the removal from one occupation or industry to another is more or less compulsory, due to industrial conditions over which the individual and even less that of the widow and orphans have no control at all apart altogether from other general conditions. I should like to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to re-examine this particular part of Clause 5. Not to do so would be to deprive tens of thousands of people. As the Prime Minister said on Monday, the number of people who are changing their occupation not from year to year but from month to month, must number tens of thousands who will be deprived of any advantages if this Clause remains as it is. For that reason he ought to at least agree to reconsider it from that point of view making it as broad and as comprehensive as possible, and to deprive as few people as can be in the circumstances of any advantages there may be under the Bill when it finally becomes an Act.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I rise for the purpose of drawing attention, if I may, to one or two what I regard dangerous features in the basis of the provision we are now discussing. It seems to me that the basis of this seems to be very objectionable and particularly in conditions such as we unfortunately find ourselves as a nation now. The basis of qualification is steady employment for a fairly long period. I know I shall be told that provisions are made in the Bill for protecting the victims of unemployment. But I hope to show in the course of my few remarks that this protection is quite inadequate and that, therefore, it is not something on which we are justified in resting for satisfaction. That being the case, I submit that we ought to take the basis without any potential protection or modification. The basis of the provision we are discussing is steady employment and I cannot imagine how the Government in the present circumstances came to adopt steady employment as the foundation of any statutory provision. Surely there was never in the history of the country a time when the adoption of such a foundation was less justified. The country at the moment is in a most unprecedented industrial condition. I suppose not a single person can recall a time when it was so difficult to rely on steady
employment for a fairly long period as at present. I know and I am sure the Minister of Health and every one on the other side of the House knows that there are districts in which general unemployment is to be found — districts that used to be the centres of industries and industrial population and are now silenced because of the industrial collapse that has taken place within the past two or three years. If it was a temporary state of affairs one could take that into account in framing our legislation knowing that because of its transitory character by the time a Measure had received the Royal Assent and the machinery has been put into operation things would be quite different, it would then be found that the basis adopted was one justified by an intelligent anticipapation of industrial conditions in the country.
But we cannot take the view that this is a temporary condition of things, and seeing that we are taking regular employment as the basis we must necessarily in this House and at this stage and on this provision take into account the industrial prospects of the country. There is scarcely a day that passes in which thousands of people who have toiled in industry all their working years are not deprived by circumstances over which they and we have no control of any reasonable prospects of obtaining employment. I said there were several districts in the country in which industry had almost entirely collapsed. Take County Durham. That county in normal times employed about 150,000 miners. I understand that to-day 50,000 or 60,000 of these miners are on the books of the employment exchange, that is, if they are eligible to register themselves for the benefits of unemployment. These 50,000 or 60,000 people are deprived of the ordinary methods of finding a living and one does not hope, unfortunately, that within the next few weeks or months or even the next year or two, that things will be any better in the County of Durham: and that county is not singular in this respect. There is South Wales, where you have whole districts in which for more than a year all the people have been totally unemployed. He could tell you from the information he gets at the Ministry of Health of districts to-day; he could give the names of
places in which, of the population of 5,000 or 6,000, scarcely a single person is employed. Yet in that condition of things the Minister of Health comes to this House with a provision that is based on steady employment.
Reference was made in the course of the Debate to another class of people who are likely to come within the scope of this Bill. This condition of unemployment, in which we now unfortunately find ourselves, does not only hit severely the ordinary manual workers. We are now dealing with one of the most important features of the Pensions Bill. I want to draw attention to a class of people who, because of these industrial conditions, are for the first time being forced—I use the word purposely—into insurable employment. Take the small shopkeeper class. The Minister of Health knows that in those districts to which I have referred it is not merely the miners who are suffering from unemployment. You have the population who, in normal times, live on the trade which comes from supplying the domestic needs of the mining population. The miners, deprived of the ordinary means of getting wages, have not the usual purchasing power, and that reacts on the shopkeeping population. That shopkeeping population cannot by any stretch of imagination, as those who understand the social conditions of this country will admit, be regarded as a wealthy class. They are poor people who struggle along and keep out of the wages system because they prefer independence to high wages. You have people in this country who are still in revolt against the system which puts them from day to day, from week to week, and from year to year, under the domination of a boss, and so they prefer to go on in a quiet way manipulating a small capital through a small shop to supply the domestic needs of their neighbours and to make a profit which, in the aggregate, is in many cases less than they would obtain in employment. They form an industrious and very worthy class which, in some respects, is the backbone of the community. That is the class who still believe in independence. If you think of it seriously and fundamentally, when a people loses its love of independence that people has lost its soul. The nation that cannot retain a decent proportion of its
population in a state of independence is very low in the social and international scale. I am sure all Members of the House of Commons know it is impossible to retain that sense of independence if you are a member of the wage-earning class. Their conditions of employment destroy that spirit of independence. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I am sorry that hon. Members opposite do not agree with me, but I have been there, and you have not. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes, we have!"] If you have, you have not benefited by your experience. I have benefited by my experience to the extent of understanding the influence of capitalistic domination.
I put this point to hon. Members for their serious consideration. Do they really think it is possible to retain a sense of independence when, day after day, they have no voice at all in the initiation of the work they have to do? I pardon the Minister of Health in his anxiety to take part in this discussion. I assure him we are not getting much enlightenment from the side of the House of which he is in charge. The very condition of the Government supporters during the whole of the discussion is the best evidence that you have very little sense of independence on that side of the House. The point I am making is this, that in those industrial districts you have the small shopkeeping class who manage to get sufficient to maintain their families in normal times, but who have not a sufficient income to enable them to provide against a long period of trade depression such as they are confronted with at the moment. Consequently, they are going under. It is not merely the wage earner, the people who have been wage earners for years and years who are going down under the present trade depression, but the small shop-keeping class is also going down and it has no reserves. They are being forced into insurable employment, and it is first of all to that class of the community to which the provisions laid down here will apply most severely. They must have 104 weeks of regular employment and 104 regular contributions. It is true—at any rate that is my understanding of the conditions under which the Bill will operate—that the Prolongation Act can ensure that the 104 contributions will be maintained if they have been in an
insurable occupation and are out of employment, but are genuinely seeking employment.
May I remind the Committee that we are now dealing with a class of people who have never been in insurance? For the first time they are being forced into it. Just as the whole industrial population was forced in by Statute, these people are being forced in by the economic situation. But they are only being brought in when they can find employment. The obligation to find it is on them, not on the Government. It is easy for the Government to say that they must have 104 weeks of regular employment, or if they cannot find it then the Government will use the Prolongation Act and see that they get benefits. It is all right to say that to insured persons, but it is no use saying it to people who have not been insured. It is because the case of these unfortunate people appears to have been overlooked that I am justified in drawing attention to what is the folly of basing the scheme on steady employment. You are not justified in taking steady employment as your basis unless there is a reasonable prospect of these people obtaining steady employment. There is no such prospect. These small shopkeepers, in fact, find it more difficult to find employment than the ordinary manual worker. If a vacancy occurs, the employer will only accept a man who has had some experience of the work; he will accept him in preference to the man who has had no experience. The employer looks purely and solely from the point of view of the suitability of the worker. He cannot afford to show any sentiment. If he did and his rival showed none, his business would suffer.
Take the case of a miner in South Wales who has been in insurable occupation, and compare it with that of the small shopkeeper in South Wales who has never been in insurable occupation. The two go out in search of work, and contemplate a place where a man accustomed to some form of mining conditions is wanted. The small shopkeeper has no earthly chance of getting employment. His position is infinitely worse than that of the man who has been accustomed to manual work. If there were no other objection to this provision than that it puts an insurmountable obstacle in the way of the small shopkeeper; it
is sufficient to justify the Amendment, and appealing to all reasonable Members of the Committee to support us in the Division Lobby. It is quite true—I am talking about insured persons—that if a person is insured and he falls out of employment, as people are doing now at the rate of 30,000 and 40,000 a week, then under this Clause it is possible to provide that he shall not be deprived of benefits, because of unemployment, if he is genuinely seeking work.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The right hon. Gentleman was not here when I made an explanation earlier in the Debate and informed the Committee that I had been in error in regard to certain of the conditions of the prolongaion of insurance.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I accept the explanation. I admire the manner in which he rises in his place from time to time to explain to the Committee that when he told them this and that he was in error. I admire that attitude in the representative of the Government. It indicates at least that he has courage and that he does not know all about the Measure he has to pilot through the Committee. I do not think he should be expected to know all. I have been on that side of the House, and I have often been confronted with difficulties when trying to pilot delicate and intricate Measures through the House and endeavouring to familiarise myself with all the various points and their implications. I sympathise with the Minister of Health. I think that under the Prolongation Act it is possible, leaving out the qualification about genuinely seeking employment, to insure that the unemployed man will not suffer because of his unemployment. But how is it to be brought about? I want the Committee to understand this. You have here something that may only be a trap for the innocent working classes who think they are going to be protected by this Measure. First of all, he is kept in the National Health Insurance scheme, and that scheme is the basis of this Measure. A person must be in the National Health Insurance scheme before he gets the alleged benefits of this Bill.

HON. MEMBERS: Order!

2.0 A.M.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I do not know that I have said or done anything that is out of Order. I do not want to do anything that is out of Order. These cries of
"Order!" "Order!" whether they were directed against me, or against some other hon. Member, have the effect of disturbing one's trend of thought and disturbing the line of argument. I hope we will succeed in conducting our discussion on this Measure, which is of first-class importance, and of interest to millions of people, in an orderly manner and in a way creditable to the traditions of this Assembly. I was interrupted by the calls of "Order"—one of the few sounds which have come from the Government Benches since we have been discussing the Bill. It was, perhaps, because of the fact that we have had so little experience of noises from that side that I really felt a sense of alarm and wondered whether the House had been invaded by people to whom we were not accustomed. I have now passed away from the shopkeeping class—those coming into insurable occupations for the first time. I am attempting to deal with the position of people who have been for a fairly prolonged time in insurable occupations. They have been in insurance and insurable employment for perhaps 10, 20 or 30 years, but they may have been in and out of insurable occupations during that time. We know there is a very large section of people who for the greater part of their time are insured but, who, nevertheless, at frequent periods of their lives are not insured. I think I can favour the Committee with one or two examples of such people. I dealt in my opening remarks with people who are coming down the scale. A well-known litterateur in this country has stated that we have no middle-class; that we are all going up or coming down. I was dealing in my opening remarks with people who are coming down—the small shopkeeper class who, with the trade depression, find themselves driven out of the shopkeeping community and driven in search of what employment they can find. I had dwelt upon the spirit of independence which still, notwithstanding all efforts to suppress it, has a lingering existence in the minds of a large section of the British people.

The CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman must relate his observations to 104 weeks or 26 weeks.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I am sorry I had not made my point quite clear. You have people trying to get out of insurable employment into non-insurable employment. They are the very cream of our population. Every self-respecting man wants to get out of the position in which the working-class is submerged today. I think it is to their credit. They utilise every opportunity that comes their way to escape from the conditions associated with wage earning to-day and get into that independent state of society where they will not be subject to humilating legislation such as that which we are now discussing.

Mr. DIXEY: Is it in Order for one of the Members of the Opposition Front Bench to be asleep?

The CHAIRMAN: Every hon. Member can show his appreciation of the argument as he thinks proper.

Mr. WHEATLEY: If I have sent one hon. Member asleep I have awakened a hundred others who, so far as this Bill is concerned, have been asleep since it began. They have not contributed a single idea to the improvement of the Bill. It comes very bad from them to draw attention to the fact that after 40 hours of continuous employment on the part of the small body of Members on this side of the House, one of them should have succumbed to the claims of sleep. I was drawing attention to the fact that you have people struggling to get out of insurable employment. They get out when trade is good. They make their escape, and all who understand the working-class conditions can only congratulate them. Many of the Members here have escaped. But then a trade depression, such as that which overwhelms us to-day, comes along, and they are deprived of the ordinary means by which they get their livelihood outside insurable occupations. They may, for instance, have been successful collectors for an insurance company, as many respectable people in this country are, and in that way they have been able to make £6, £7, £8, £9 or £10 a week for a considerable period. Then, when the trade slump comes along, they are no longer able to maintain themselves, and they want to get into insurable employment again. What is the—I will not say fate—but what
is the trap that is actually laid for these people when they are forced to come back and seek insurable employment? The Minister of Health lays it down in his Bill that they must have been in continuous employment for 104 weeks and must have made 104 contributions. [Interruption.] There is one great advantage, and only one that I know of, in discussing business at this hour of the day or night, and that is that one's sense of humour gets highly developed, and people who could not be tempted or bribed to work up an ordinary smile in an ordinary working hour can be driven into the realms of hilarity by a remark.

Mr. ERSKINE: On a point of Order. The right hon. Gentleman, I believe, has spent quite half his speech in lecturing and giving his views about how the rest of the Members should behave. Has that anything to do with the Amendment he is supposed to be supporting? I have been here 10 minutes and have heard nothing but abuse. Whether we smile at his remarks or not, is it in order?

The CHAIRMAN: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman's progress will be expedited by other hon. Members rising.

Captain WATERHOUSE: On a point of Order. Is it not a fact that the other half of the right hon. Gentleman's speech would be much more applicable to Clause 13 than to this Clause?

The CHAIRMAN: I have not been here quite long enough to have grasped the trend of events, but I gather that the right hon. Gentleman is about to come to the question of contributions.

Mr. WHEATLEY: Before resuming the thread of my argument, I thank you for the protection which you have given me. I think that, as representing the Opposition and the minority in this House, it is due to the Chair that when we are protected against a hostile and oppressive majority we should generously acknowledge the protection which we receive. I must say that the present occasion is not an isolated one. We always receive in this House, from the Chair at any rate, not merely justice—

The CHAIRMAN: My conduct in the Chair is not relevant to the Question before the Committee.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I am sorry if, in my desire to pay a compliment and express a feeling, I have transgressed. But an hon. Member interjected a question to which I would like to reply before proceeding further with my argument. I have complained repeatedly in the course of the evening about questions from this side of the Committee receiving no attention from the Government side, and so it would ill become me if—

Mr. DIXEY: On a point of Order. I want to ask, with respect, whether I am entitled to move the Closure.

Mr. J. JONES: You can move the furniture, if you like.

The CHAIRMAN: Any hon. Member can move the Closure.

Mr. DIXEY: rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put"; but the CHAIRMAN withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.

Mr. WHEATLEY: One may call spirits from the vasty deep, but will they come? The question that was put to me by an hon. Member below the Gangway was "Why did I not deal with this point on Clause 13?" Well, I belong to a very superstitious race. They always regard number 13 as being unlucky, and I do not expect we shall reach Clause 13 to-night, and I want to give the Committee the benefit of my views on this point while I can do so relevantly and within the Rules of the House. I was dealing, when I was interrupted, with the class of people who get out of insurable employment and into non-insurable employment, and when the trade depression comes along are pushed back and are compelled to go in search of employment. These people, by the provisions to which we are objecting in this Bill, are entirely deprived of any benefit, and they must have—

Mr. G. BALFOUR: On a point of Order. I have listened to the whole of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, and this is at least the fifth time he has reiterated this same argument. It is at least the second time since you came into the Chair. The right hon. Gentleman is deliberately obstructing by constantly repeating.

The CHAIRMAN: If I come to the conclusion that the right hon. Gentleman
is guilty of what, I think, is described as vain repetition of his argument, I should be able to deal with it.

Mr. SPENCER: Is it in order for hon. Members constantly to rise in the House for the purpose of putting the right hon. Gentleman off his speech? It is quite evident that the object of hon. Gentlemen opposite is that particular purpose.

The CHAIRMAN: I cannot read the hearts of men and I cannot enter into the motives which inspire hon. Members to raise points of Order, but I am bound to say that I think the points of Order are likely to keep the right hon. Gentleman longer.

Mr. SPENCER: Is it not evident that the right hon. Gentleman has been visibly perturbed?

Mr. BECKETT: Is it in Order for hon. Members who have apparently no desire to take part in the Debate to use un-Parliamentary expressions such as "obstruction" to those Members who do wish to discuss it

Mr. WHEATLEY: I do submit that I am entitled to some consideration if i do repeat arguments, in the midst of the difficult conditions in which I carry on my criticism and consideration of this Bill —difficult conditions that are quite intentionally created by hon. Members on the Government side. I think they might quite well—as you have very properly rebuked them in saying—leave the conduct of the business of the Committee in the capable hands in which the House has placed it.
It is very difficult for those people who have been on uninsurable employment— [Interruption.] Hon. Members opposite would have a good deal more sympathy with the unfortunate people who are victims of it if they had been unemployed. These people want to get the benefits of this Bill. They have not been in insurable occupations, and consequently they are not insured. They cannot get into this Bill until they have had 104 weeks of regular employment and have made 104 contributions, and they cannot obtain regular employment or make the contributions because of the disastrous industrial conditions under which we are now going through—[Interruption.] With a
little indulgence I will reach the end of the contribution which I want to make. After all, this is only the second time I have spoken on this Bill, and I am the Leader of the Opposition in this discussion. I am entitled to some consideration from the party who are supporting the Government. It has. been argued with a good deal of force that, if people are in insurable employment, they can get out of this provision about which we have protested, that is, steady employment and the 164 consecutive contributions. I understand that the only course by which they can be protected is that the approved society of which the man is a member will take him under its wing and see that he is protected during this unfortunate period. The insurance society in most cases—and I think it may be said to their credit—have extended the very utmost consideration to their members who are the unfortunate victims of unemployment. I want to show you the weakness of this alleged protection on which the Government have based this provision. The protection is through the action of the approved society towards its unfortunate members; but you cannot leave out of account the effect which unemployment has on these approved societies. An approved society can be as generous as it is possible for a society to be, but if the means are not there— [Interruption.] I think one should be protected from unseemly interruptions from the Front Bench, which are unjustifiable and inconsiderate. Well, the condition of the approved society, which is the protector of the person on whom this condition in this Bill is being imposed— the condition of that protector cannot be left out of account when we are considering whether this condition may be imposed on its members or not. That is the question before the House—whether the 104 contributions and the steady employment should be imposed on them. The approved societies have acted very generously up to now to their members. They cannot be expected to be as generous towards their members within the next twelve months. They cannot possibly be as generous as they were during the past few years. You have to keep that in mind when considering the fairness of this provision of the Bill.
But there is something else you have to bear in mind which is far more important.
The approved society acts on advice received from the Employment Exchange. I do not know whether members of the House are familiar with what happens. An approved society applies to the Employment Exchange to supply it with the opinion or if possible a guarantee that the member is not a malingerer and that he is genuinely seeking employment, and the Ministry of Labour makes provisions which enables the Employment Exchange to give the approved society that information. The point I want to make clear is this. The Employment Exchange is directly under the control and under the influence of the Government. We know that at the present moment the Government are extremely anxious to strike off people from the register of the Employment Exchanges. We have had evidence of that in this House in replies to questions and in discussions within the last few weeks. We then have to bear in mind the attitude and the interest of the Government towards the reply which in future will be given or is likely to be given to the approved society which will make this application in regard to the genuine activities of its members. [HON. MEMBERS: 'Divide!"] If the Government is interested—[Interruption]—the Government will have a double interest in seeing if a man who is not registered is genuinely seeking employment. First of all if they can strike him off they save on the unemployment insurance benefit and they also save on the benefits that would accrue to the man through being uninsured for the purpose of the Bill. We are discussing. We may reasonably assume, knowing their attitude towards the employment exchange, we may be justified in being afraid that they will not act fairly and that they will act unfairly

and exercise undue influence on the employment exchange when questions like this are sent for opinion. I come to— [HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up!"] If hon. Members will insist on interrupting and if one deprives his neighbour of the pleasure of hearing my voice at this hour of the morning, you are really carrying on mutual destruction of your pleasures. The other point, and the most important point of all, I want to draw your attention to, is the condition of the million and a quarter people, mostly insured who would come under this scheme. It is not necessary that I should occupy the time of this Committee in reminding it that we have a million and a quarter—

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee proceeded to a Division.

Mr. BECKETT: (seated and covered)—May I call attention to the fact that earlier in this Debate the Attorney-General had listened to several points with regard to our constituencies, brought forward by the hon. Member for East Middlesbrough (Miss Wilkinson) and myself. He did not reply, owing to the fact that he was to reply to speeches at the end. He was due to give us an explanation of the questions, and we have had no opportunity of hearing him reply on that point.

The CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of Order.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 160; Noes, 74.

Division No. 245.]
AYES.
[2.30 a.m.


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Doyle, Sir N. Grattan


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Burman, J. B.
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Ashmead-Bartlett, E.
Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith


Astor, Viscountess
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer)


Atkinson, C.
Chamberlain. Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Everard, W. Lindsay


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Christie, J. A.
Fairfax, Captain J. G.


Balniel, Lord
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Fermoy, Lord


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Cooper, A. Duff
Finburgh, S.


Bethell, A.
Cope, Major William
Fleming, D. P.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Couper, J. B.
Ford, p. J.


Blundell, F. N.
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft.
Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.
Fraser, Captain Ian


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Gadie, Lieut.-Colonel Anthony


Brass, Captain W.
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Ganzoni, Sir John


Briggs, J. Harold
Dalkeith, Earl of
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham


Brittain, Sir Harry
Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)
Goff, Sir Park


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Dixey, A. C.
Grace, John


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Nelson, Sir Frank
Shepperson, E. W.


Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir B. (Eastbourne)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Sinclair, Col. T.(Queen's Univ., Belfst)


Hall, Capt. w. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Nuttall, Ellis
Skelton, A. N.


Hanbury, C
Oakley, T.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Haslam, Henry C.
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Smithers, Waldron


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Penny, Frederick George
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St. Marylebone)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Strickland, Sir Gerald


Holt, Capt. H. P.
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Homan, C. W. J.
Philipson, Mabel
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Pielou, D. P.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.)
Power, Sir John Cecil
Tasker, Major R. Inigo


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Templeton, W. P.


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Preston, William
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Jacob, A. E.
Raine, W.
Tinne, J. A.


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Ramsden, E.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Knox, Sir Alfred
Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Loder, J. de V.
Rentoul, G. S.
Wells, S. R.


Lynn, Sir R. J.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


MacAndrew, Charles Glen
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
White, Lieut. Colonel G. Dairymple


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Macintyre, I.
Rye, F. G.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


McLean, Major A.
Salmon, Major I.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Womersley, W. J.


Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Margesson, Captain D.
Sanderson, Sir Frank
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.
Sandon, Lord
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Meyer, Sir Frank
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.



Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Savery, S. S.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Moles, Thomas
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)
Major Sir Harry Barnston and


Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl.(Renfrew, W.)
Mr. F. C. Thomson.


Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Snell, Harry


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Slivertown)
Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Sutton, J. E.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Taylor, R. A.


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bliston)
Kelly, W. T.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Barnes, A.
Kennedy, T.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Barr, J.
Lawson, John James
Varley, Frank B.


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Lee, F.
Viant, S. P.


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Broad, F. A.
Naylor, T. E.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Paling, W.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Clynes, Right Hon. John R.
Ponsonby, Arthur
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Day, Colonel Harry
Potts, John S.
Welsh, J. C.


Duncan, C.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Westwood, J.


Fenby, T. D.
Riley, Ben
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Ritson, J.
Whiteley, W.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Grundy, T. W.
Saklatvala, Shapurji
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Scurr, John
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Windsor, Walter


Hastings, Sir Patrick
Sitch, Charles, H.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hayday, Arthur
Smillie, Robert



Hirst, G. H.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.


Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Hayes.

Question put accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 161; Noes, 74.

Division No. 246.]
AYES.
[2.40 a.m.


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Bethell, A.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks, Newb'y)


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Burman, J. B.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Blundell, F. N.
Butler, Sir Geoffrey


Ashmead-Bartlett, E.
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)


Astor, Viscountess
Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)


Atkinson, C.
Brass, Captain W.
Christie, J. A.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Briggs, J. Harold
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.


Balniel, Lord
Brittain, Sir Harry
Cooper, A. Duff


Barclay-Harvey C. M.
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Couper, J. B.


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Courtauld, Major J. S.


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Loder, J. de V.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Lynn, Sir N. J.
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Dalkeith, Earl of
MacAndrew, Charles Glen
Sandon, Lord


Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Dixey, A. C.
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Savery, S. S.


Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Macintyre, I.
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)


Doyle, Sir N. Grattan
McLean, Major A.
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Margesson, Captain D.
Shepperson, E. W.


Everard, W. Lindsay
Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfast)


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Meyer, Sir Frank
Skelton, A. N.


Fermoy, Lord
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Finburgh, S.
Moles, Thomas
Smithers, Waldron


Fleming, D. P.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Ford, P. J.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Fraser, Captain Ian
Nelson, Sir Frank
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Strickland, Sir Gerald


Ganzoni, Sir John
Nuttall, Ellis
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Oakley, T.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Goff, Sir Park
O'Connor, T J. (Bedford, Luton)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Grace, John
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Tasker, Major R. Inigo


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Templeton, W. P.


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Penny, Frederick George
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Tinne, J. A.


Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Hanbury, C.
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Haslam, Henry C.
Philipson, Mabel
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Pielou, D. P.
Wells, S. R.


Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Power, Sir John Cecil
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple


Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Preston, William
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Raine, W.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Holt, Capt. H. P.
Ramsden, E.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Homan, C. W. J.
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Wise, Sir Fredric


Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Womersley, W. J.


Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.)
Rentoul, G. S.
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.



Jacob, A. E.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Rye, F. G.
Major Cope and Mr. F. C.


Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Salmon, Major I.
Thomson.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Snell, Harry


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Slivertown)
Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Sutton, J. E.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Taylor, R. A.


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Kelly, W. T.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Barnes, A.
Kennedy, T.
Varley, Frank B.


Barr, J.
Lawson, John James
Viant, S. P.


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Lee, F.
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Broad, F. A.
Naylor, T. E.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Paling, W.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Clynes, Right Hon. John R.
Ponsonby, Arthur
Welsh, J. C.


Crawfurd, H. E.
Potts, John S.
Westwood, J.


Day, Colonel Harry
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Duncan, C.
Riley, Ben
Whiteley, W.


Fenby, T. D.
Ritson, J.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W. Bromwich)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Saklatvala, Shapurji
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Grundy, T. W.
Scurr, John
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Windsor, Walter


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Sitch, Charles, H.



Hastings, Sir Patrick
Smillie, Robert
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hayday, Arthur
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.


Hirst, G. H.
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)
Hayes.


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

Mr. WALSH: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again."
I Move for the purpose of drawing attention to an act on the part of the
Minister of Health, which I believe to be unprecedented in the history of Parliament. For the first time, and I myself have been a Member of this House for 20 years, I know no occasion
on which a Privy Councillor land a Member who has occupied the position of Minister of Health speaking to a most important Clause has been closured by the Minister (responsible for the Bill. It is quite true—and there is no attempt to deny it—that there has been a good deal of speaking. At the same time, this is a Bill upon which every Member and Certainly a Member who has held a responsible position like his right hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) is entitled to speak at length in order to draw attention to the conditions under which this Bill is being prosecuted in this House and presented to the country. I should have thought myself that the ordinary chivalry animating the two right hon. Gentlemen, each of whom have occupied similar positions would have at least prevented the Minister in charge of the Bill from closuring a hon. Member on his feet. I do not think there is any precedent for it. In the case of private Members there is.

The CHAIRMAN: I have heard similar points continually raised, but it has been laid down by successive Speakers that what has been accepted by the House it is not in Order to continue. Therefore I am not able to accept the Motion moved by the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. WALSH: I am not criticising the Closure, but the fact that this is without precedent in the annals of Parliament. It is one further example of the manner in which this Bill is being pushed without regard to all precedent, thus making it difficult, if not impossible, for the Bill to be conducted in the spirit in which such a Bill should be passed in this House. It is calculated to develop a spirit on both sides of the House to make it impossible to negotiate a Bill of this calibre as it should be negotiated.

The CHAIRMAN: I am not able to accept that Motion, as the Closure has been accepted.

Mr. MACLEAN: An Amendment has been moved and debated and the speakers, including one of the leaders of the official Opposition, who was upon his feet addressing the Committee on a question that is of some importance to the people of the country. A Motion for the
Closure coming from those who are in charge of the Bill furnishes what constitutes something that is not only unprecedented, not only a slight and an insult to the party on whose behalf he was speaking, but also an insult to all the traditions of this House. That insult has been put upon this House by the Minister of Health.

The CHAIRMAN: I understood the hon. Gentleman was submitting a. point of Order. He is making a statement. If he will submit the point of Order, I will listen to it.

Mr. MACLEAN: I am trying to put my point of Order in the plainest possible terms. It is that we on these benches consider it not only a slight upon the speaker of the moment, not only a slight on the official Opposition, but a slight upon Parliament; and I am asking you as the Chairman in charge of the proceedings and as one who has in your care the rights of all the Members, whether front bench Members or private Members, to preserve the rights of these Members by accepting the Motion to report Progress so as to discuss what is really a dastardly, a cowardly attack which can only come from an individual who is a cad.

The CHAIRMAN: That expression is not in Order and I must ask the hon. Member to withdraw it.

Mr. MACLEAN: I used the term with deliberation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw"!] A position such as has been taken up by a Minister of the Crown in an attack of this character upon a Member tan only be described as a caddish action.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member has been a considerable time in this House and he must know that expressions of that kind are not in Order. However strongly he feels on this matter, he must recognise that he is not entitled to use it and I will ask him to withdraw it.

Mr. MACLEAN: I have already said that I used the word with deliberation. The position that has been adopted in this House by the Government during the last three hours is sufficient to justify any term that I may have used to describe the conduct of the right hon. Member who moved the Closure. I say again, Mr. Hope, that I have used the term with
deliberation, and I repeat that the right hon. Member is nothing but a cad.

The CHAIRMAN: I have already asked the hon. Member twice, and I ask him for the third time to withdraw that expression.

Mr. MACLEAN: It is a thing I do not like to do. I am feeling too strongly in the matter, but in the interests of the House I withdraw the expression used, and I shall say this: that the action taken by the Minister of the Crown is one which I consider does not show him to be worthy of the high office which he holds. I think in the interest of fairness to the Members of this House, and in order that there should be a proper ventilation of the feelings of the House, so that it may not lead later to more unseemly things being said that you should accept the Motion that has been moved, so that we may get from the Government one promise at least that this perpetual way of getting rid of their difficulties and getting out of what is actually their duty and responsibility will be dropped. They must explain matters so that people outside will understand, not only the technical parts of the Bill, but the effects certain parts of the Bill will have. If Ministers of the Crown are not going to reply to points raised, the people outside will not appreciate what the effects will be. I hope, therefore, that you will allow the Motion to report Progress to come before the Committee so that the matter can be fully discussed.

3.0 A.M.

The CHAIRMAN: The Motion to report Progress was made on the ground that the motion for the Closure was unwarrantable. I have heard similar questions discussed many times during the last 21 years and successive Speakers have always ruled that a Motion having once been, accepted and voted upon cannot be reviewed by the House. Therefore, in accordance with repeated precedents, I cannot accept the Motion.

Miss WILKINSON: On a point of Order. Earlier in the discussion on this Clause I referred to an Amendment I desired to move and the Attorney-General was good enough to say that the point had considerable substance, but instead of being able to move it another hon. Member went on with his
speech. I and the hon. Member for Caithness intended moving the Amendment as soon as the Minister of Health had finished. I realise that the Motion for the Closure having been voted upon cannot be discussed, but I desire to point out that I raised my point before the Motion for the Closure was made. In the circumstances I feel that we should have some reply from the Attorney-General.

The CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of Order. Nor will the hon. Member in any way be helped by the Motion to report Progress.

Captain BENN: I realise that it would be out of Order to discuss the Motion for the Closure or its acceptance by the Chair. I understand that to be the practice of the House. But may I call your attention to a ruling by the Deputy-Chairman (Captain FitzRoy) that whilst it was out of Order to discuss the conduct of the Chair in accepting a Motion, a discussion might be allowed on the conduct of a Minister in moving the Closure. Such a discussion took place earlier in the evening. I am informed that though it is not in accordance with the practice that has prevailed for the last 20 years, it is in accordance with the practice of the House before that. Is the older practice of the House going to be reverted to?

The CHAIRMAN: It is not competent in Committee on a Bill to reverse the practice of 20 years, and I can only suggest that if the hon. and gallant Member desires to receive a general ruling he should ask Mr. Speaker for it.

Captain BENN: I am perfectly satisfied with your ruling. I was pointing out that you are in the same position as the Deputy-Chairman earlier in the evening.

The CHAIRMAN: I must see the ruling and the exact circumstances under which it was given.

Mr. BECKETT: On a point of Order. I raised a matter of considerable importance to many of the people I represent, but through an accident the Attorney-General was not able to deal with the point. Am I not able to raise it now? If not, Debates in this House are going to be reduced to a farce—

The CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of Order.

Mr. BECKETT: I am putting this forward as a reason why you should accept the Motion to report Progress.

Mr. MACLEAN: May I draw your attention, Mr. Hope, to the fact that although we are debating a Bill which is under the control of the Minister of Health, there is not a single representative of that Department present in the Committee. I ask you, therefore, to accept the Motion.

The CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of Order. Mr. Johnston.

Mr. R. DAVIES: Before you call on the hon. Member for Dundee may I point out that I have a second Amendment on the Paper. I have been wondering whether you did not call my second Amendment because you believed it consequential on the one which was discussed earlier. If that was the case, I desire to represent to you that they are quite distinct, separate and apart.

The CHAIRMAN: I had fully in my mind the discussion on the contributions as well as weeks, and in the circumstances I did not see my way to select the Amendment.

Mr. SPENCER: I beg to move, on behalf of the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston) in page 4, line 10, to leave out from the word "insurance" to the end of the Clause.
It is not unreasonable to expect that for the first four years a contributor shall have made contributions equal to three 26 weeks' contributions, but surely as the scheme proceeds this will operate very harshly indeed against an individual contributor. I desire to know what is the significance of the word "deemed." We were told that if a person who is a contributor under this scheme is unable during the last three years to continue his contribution, provision has been made under another Act to retain his membership as a contributor to the fund, and he would continue in membership for benefit under this particular Act. If that is not correct it means that a contributor under this Act may pay for 10 or 20 years, but during the last three years he may be unable to pay, on the average, 26 contributions each
year. If my reading of this is correct, and he fails to pay these average contributions for three years before he dies, or three years before he ceases to pay on attaining a certain age, then his wife and children would be deprived of advantages under this Act. If that is so, it is a serious handicap against the contributor, and it does not take adequately into account the previous contributions he has made. I would think that it was more advisable, and more in accordance with the principle of equity, to have said that, as the scheme proceeds, we shall take into consideration not merely the payment made during the last three years, but also the payments made during the life of the scheme. It does seem to me that the payments which have been made in a long period would not be taken into account at all. We should like to know the real effect of these words, and whether they do mean that, notwithstanding the fact that a man may not actually have paid these contributions, he may still be entitled to the benefit if he complies with "A." That is to say, that if he has made 104 contributions, and afterwards during three years, on account of unemployment, is unable to make 26 contributions per year, his widow and children will still be entitled to the provision in this Clause.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I am very glad to have the opportunity of answering the question and making this matter, I hope, clear. Paragraph (b) deals with the case where an insured person has entered into insurance more than 208 weeks. In that case it is necessary to have some assurance of his really having remained an insured person up to the date the claim arises, otherwise the person who has been in for two years, and for many years afterwards, will be able to say "I have done my 104 weeks; I am an insured person." Provision has to be made to provide that the person who is making a claim shall not take advantage in that way and shall be compelled to show that he really is an insured person. He will either have to show that the contributions paid have been 26 weeks on the average, or are "deemed" to have been paid in accordance with regulations under this Bill. If the hon. Member will look at Clause 29, he will find power given to the Minister to make regulations to provide, where a
person is prevented by incapacity or unemployment to keep up his contributions, that he shall be "deemed" to have kept up his contributions.

Captain BENN: It is impossible to pass this Clause without seeing the regulations. If the regulations are very harsh, many will be disqualified under this paragraph. It is clearly necessary that we should know what these regulations are going to be. A charge is to be put on insured persons and their employers for the benefits under this Bill, as well as other benefits under the existing old age pensions. If you are merely reimbursing contributors then, clearly, you must not make regulations which may have the effect of depriving some man of his money which he has contributed for years for benefits. A man may have contributed for 30 years under this Bill and then, because he happens to have less than an average of 26 contributions in the last three years, or because the regulations were sufficiently harsh to exclude him, then it may well be that he will be deprived of benefits. I doubt whether the Sub-section could be left out with effect, but there is great substance in the point, and it is clearly necessary that the Attorney-General should tell us what the Regulations are and when they are going to be laid. Will they be laid before the Report Stage, or will they be laid before the Bill finally passes the House? Per haps a little later he will give us some definite information on what I venture to think is quite a relevant point.

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and 40 Members being present—

Mr. WALSH: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
I think it is perfectly scandalous that in the discussion of one of the most momentous Bills ever presented to this House, there is not a single representative of the Department specially associated with the Bill and that the Government finds itself incapable of keeping a House. There is supposed to be a relay system and they are supposed, at least, to pay attention to what is going on, even if they do not discuss it themselves. But all they do is to vote blindly, and for more than an hour there has not been a single representative present of the Department specially pre-
senting the Bill. Surely, there never was such a condition of things known in the history of this House. I can imagine nothing more discreditable, nothing more calculated to bring the proceedings of the House into contempt than what has been taking place during the last four or five hours. When an attempt is made to debate on this side of the Committee, Members are closured. When there really ought to be an attempt by the responsible Minister of the Crown to present the case, they themselves are absent; and not only that, but all those faithful henchmen that they are supposed to have in reserve are absent too. Is not this a condition in which we can with perfect propriety ask that the Committee shall report Progress?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I can tell the right hon. Gentleman at once that I cannot accept that Motion. It was proposed only two minutes ago, and was refused.

Mr. WALSH: It was turned down on a point of Order. The mere Motion in itself fell to the ground, and it was an entirely different point. My first Motion having been refused by your colleague in the Chair, is no longer before the Committee, and, indeed, did not come effectively before the Committee. But this is upon an entirely different point. First of all—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I cannot accept it.

Mr. WHEATLEY: On a point of Order. The Motion which was properly rejected by the Chair within the last 15 or 20 minutes was one that should be now left out of account altogether. I think we are in a position that we would have been in if that Motion had never been submitted. I was present when the Chairman gave his ruling on that, and I think he was influenced by the grounds that were submitted in its support. The grounds were the moving of the Closure while an ex-Minister was on his feet, and other reasons. These did not appeal to the Chairman, but the conditions are different now. In view of the exhausted state of the Houses—evinced by the fact that we had not 40 Members present only a few moments ago—and the fact that the representatives of the Ministry are in such an exhausted state that they have to leave the House during the dis-
cussion of a Measure in which they are the Department primarily interested and have had to be assisted back, are we not now in order in asking that at this hour of the morning we should postpone the discussion of this important Measure?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The point of Order the right hon. Gentleman raises only convinces me that I was wrong in giving any reasons for not accepting the Motion. I am not obliged to give reasons. I cannot accept the Motion.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I do not think you are fully seized of the fact that the previous attempt from these benches to move that we report Progress was never moved. As soon as it became obvious to the Chair that the opportunity for a Debate on such a Motion might cause comment upon the decision of the Committee to closure the business, your predecessor said that we could not debate that question. With all due deference, I think you are perfectly correct in saying when the Motion was now moved, that if the Motion to report Progress had been requested a little time before and refused, that thereby you would be justified in refusing it now. But I do not think that is actually the case.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Without having regard to the ruling given just now in regard to a similar motion, I cannot accept this Motion.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: In that case, we had better get on with the discussion, but I do not think it will hasten discussion. This is a most important Amendment on Clause 5, and I do hope it will not be rushed. I do not know whether I shall be allowed to get out my first sentence, because it is a fear ever present with Members on this Front Bench that they will be closured before getting out a word. This is really one of the most important Amendments of the whole Bill. I hardly think the Attorney-General was quite frank in dealing with this Amendment. He spoke of these paragraphs (a) and (b) as being alternative. It must have been a late hour of the night that made him use those words. They are not alternative; they are supplemental To get your widow's pension you have got to do two things under this Bill as it stands. First of all, you must have made your 104
contributions, and then it must be more than four years since you had a personal interest in insurance. That is to say, in the vast majority of the cases, in any case, where you have been insured for more than four years before the Bill comes into operation you have got to show that during those four years you have got to have an average of 26 contributions per year. So that you have got to be in employment for at least two years out of the last four. This is a very serious position. If paragraph (a) stood alone I should think there was some justification for the necessity mentioned. A man may have been insured for 40 years, and just at the tail end he may have been an unfortunate man in the coal or iron or steel trade. If he is out of work for more than a certain period in the last four years, he loses all the money he put into this scheme. We are not only dealing with a scheme for the first time; this is operative 20 or 30 years hence. If people who have been paying for 40 years lose their employment for 18 months, they may forfeit all right to get benefit.
That certainly was not what I understood of the Bill when the Second Reading was debated, and we ought to have from the Minister some adequate explanation of why these two provisions are put in, what he exactly means by this penalising Clause for the unemployed man and, more particularly, what are going to be the "26 contributions calculated in the prescribed manner." We do not know what the prescribed manner is. We should like to know how they are calculated. For all those reasons I think we want a very careful scrutiny of this particular Clause. There was just one thing in the Attorney-General's speech which gave us some sort of illumination. He made it quite clear that in drafting this Bill the greatest care had been taken to see that there should not be any danger of a man getting his pension under false pretences. Well, if you are going to go into every Measure of this sort and try to block up every loophole to stop a man getting a pension where, a cording to the theory of the claim, he ought to get it, you are going to make it very much more difficult for the just case in your efforts to stop the unjust case. This provision, like so many others, always seems to assume an
inveterate malignity on the part of the working classes, whose original sin seems to have impressed the drafters of the Bill and makes it full of these safeguards, but also full of pitfalls for the ninety and nine just men to make him suffer for the prospective failing of the bad man. We ought to be very careful in our desire to make a water-tight and fool-proof scheme not to place additional obstacles in the way of a just reward to the man who has paid his contribution. I think my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn) said that ought to be driven into the heads of the Government in this Debate to realise that this is not something given to the working classes. This is not spoon-feeding the deserving poor. It is an insurance scheme which they are not merely asked to join, but forced to join. If it were a voluntary scheme then I should say make your terms as you like. But here you have an insurance scheme which ought to be of its nature a voluntary scheme. You are making it a compulsory scheme, and if you are fool enough or unfortunate enough to lose your job all those fourpences and fivepences you put into this scheme in 40 years will go away. The very fact that it is a compulsory scheme ought to make us more careful to see that every contributor gets justice, and, above all, to see that he does not have on the top of the inequity and injustice unemployment added, injustice on the part of the Government.

Mr. SAKLATVALA: Paragraph (b) makes the whole Clause quite an intolerable one. The Government do not seem to realise the full effects of the operation of this Clause as they have made it. Previous speakers have pointed out already the general hardship that appears on the reading of the Clause, but when we go further and study the full effects of many of the words, I submit that this is not only bad law but a positive piece of deliberate injustice aimed at the working classes under the false disguise of an Insurance Act to get out of their miserable pittance every week anything and everything by hook or by crook.
The system of contribution, and the unjust system of contribution, of the low earnings is getting it out of them by hook, and these two paragraphs, especially the last one, is to get it out
of them by crook. It is not a question of safeguarding against any malpractices under the Bill by the insured persons and it is not only safeguarding the insurance funds, but this is making a deliberate attempt against the persons who have in a bona fide way, in a fair and square manner, paid their contribution, to simply seize their contributions and deny to their heirs the ultimate benefit when the time arises. The whole Clause is arbitrarily framed. The process adopted having a connection with the substance of the Clause, we see the Government are quite eager that even their own followers should be absent from the Committee and not listen to the counter arguments, but merely come in and vote tamely for these Clauses. The Government are very nervous throughout the whole proceedings that any argument should be brought forward that the public should realise, and therefore they are moving Closure after Closure to stifle genuine argument.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I cannot allow discussion on that point.

Mr. SAKLATVALA: It is a belief on the part of the Government that these Clauses are so badly framed that they cannot stand the searching discussion by the Committee and open the eyes of the public. Here we find that when such Clauses are put into operation another evil is bound to result. The employers will be the class of persons of whom the present Government are the representatives—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: This has nothing whatever to do with the Amendment. The hon. Member really must base his remarks on some connection with the Amendment.

Mr. SAKLATVALA: Let me submit that it has a very close connection with the Amendment and that very grave harm will follow.

Sir GRATTAN DOYLE: I beg to call attention to the position of the Liberal party.

Mr. SAKLATVALA: The Government are introducing this paragraph (b), and I submit that they come from the class who are going to operate this Clause as employers. Let me point out that it will be in the hands of the employers to throw
men deliberately out of its operations so that 26 weeks' contributions will become impossible. It will be not only an inducement, but in keeping with the practice of the class, to throw people out of employment.

Mr. WHEATLEY: On a point of Order. I want to draw your attention to the fact that several Members on the other side of the House used the word "rot" in reference to the speech of the hon. Member. Is that a Parliamentary expression?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I did not catch the remarks to which the right hon. Gentleman refers.

Mr. WHEATLEY: Further, to that point of Order. May I draw your attention to the fact that the Minister of Health himself, the Gentleman who was presumably in charge of the House, interjected the remark that it was true.

HON. MEMBERS: No.

Mr. FORD: I said it was true, Sir.

Mr. WHEATLEY: If the original remark escaped your hearing, and an hon. Member now admits that it was true—

Mr. FORD: As any honest man would.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I want to know if it is a Parliamentary expression.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I did not hear the expression.

Sir G. DOYLE: I want to draw your attention to the deplorable position of the Liberal party.

Mr. SAKLATVALA: I do not know if you will permit me to show my illustration, the correctness of my argument, in answer to the challenge thrown in the shape of interruptions, but I hope I will not be charged with an attempt to keep hon. Members opposite up, because it is my honest desire to keep them down. The real position is this, that we just now find in the operation of unemployment benefit and in the operation of pensions and so on, that deliberate attempts are made to disqualify persons from their dues by manipulating figures of unemployment. There is not the slightest doubt in the
minds of the working class and their representatives that on a large scale deliberate measures are from time to time adopted by the employing class to cheat the poor workers of the little they are entitled to under the law by taking advantage of the technicality of the law. It will not only deceive the men themselves but even the helpless families, and there will be temptation for Chancellors of the Exchequer to show a larger balance in hand to the credit of this scheme, and their friends themselves would have it in their power to exercise control over the period of contribution. I put it to the Committee, comrade FitzRoy—

Mr. FORD: On a point of Order. Is the hon. Member entitled in addressing the Chair to use the term he has chosen?

Mr. WHEATLEY: May I ask if an hon. Member who described the speech of the hon. Member to whom he refers as "rot" is entitled to raise this objection?

Mr. FORD: I never admitted having said "rot." I said that it was true.

Mr. SAKLATVALA: I agree that the word was true, but it described the mentality of the interjector. I was pointing out that, taking the realities of life, this Clause is one that is going to operate against the workers by its legal defect. It carries with it elements of persecution of the workers at certain periods of their life. Not only will their dependents be deprived after death, but on account of the temptation of putting them under the disability imposed upon the workers by this Clause, these poor men and women will be made miserable during their period of work and of service. We cannot be merely side-tracked with the idea that such things do not happen, that the gentlemen of England do not carry out such plans. Men by the thousand suffer to-day by such trickery. It is too patent for people in the country not to believe that it is an open practice and an extensive practice carried out by the mastering class of employers,

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 154; Noes, 70.

Division No. 247.]
AYES.
[3.51 a.m.


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Rentoul, G. S.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Ashmead-Bartlett, E.
Hanbury, C.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Astor, Viscountess
Haslam, Henry C.
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Balniel, Lord
Herberts, (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Rye, F. G.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Salmon, Major I.


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Bethell, A.
Holt, Captain H. P.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Homan, C. W. J.
Sandon, Lord


Blundell. F. N.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.)
Savery, S. S.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)


Brass, Captain W.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. O. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)


Briggs, J. Harold
Jacob, A. E.
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)


Brittain, Sir Harry
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Shepperson, E. W.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Loder, J. de V.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfst.)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Lynn, Sir R. J.
Skelton, A. N.


Burman, J. B.
MacAndrew, Charles Glen
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Smithers, Waldron


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Macintyre, Ian
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Christie, J. A.
McLean, Major A.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Cooper, A. Duff
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Strickland, Sir Gerald


Cope, Major William
Margesson, Captain D.
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Couper, J. B.
Meyer, Sir Frank
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Sugden, Sir Wilfred


Courthope. Lieut.-Col. George L.
Moles, Thomas
Tasker, Major R. Inigo


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Templeton, W. P.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Nelson, Sir Frank
Tinne, J. A.


Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. O. L. (Exeter)
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Dixey, A. C.
Nuttall, Ellis
Warrender, Sir Victor


Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Oakley, T.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Doyle, Sir N. Grattan
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Wells, S. R.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Wheler, Major Granville C. H.


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Penny, Frederick George
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple


Everard, W. Lindsay
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Fermoy, Lord
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Wise, Sir Fredric


Finburgh, S.
Philipson, Mabel
Womersley, W. J.


Fleming, D. p.
Pielou, D. P.
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Ford, P. J.
Power, Sir John Cecil
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Fraser, Captain Ian
Preston, William



Ganzoni, Sir John
Raine, W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Ramsden, E.
Captain Douglas Hacking and


Goff, Sir Park
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Major Hennessy.


Grace, John
Reid, D. D. (County Down)





NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Slivertown)
Sutton, J. E.


Alexander, A. V (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Taylor, R. A.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Kelly, W. T.
Varley, Frank B.


Barr, J.
Kennedy, T.
Viant, S. P.


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Lawson, John James
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Broad, F. A.
Lee, F.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Naylor, T. E.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Crawfurd, H. E.
Paling, W.
Welsh, J. C.


Day, Colonel Harry
Ponsonby, Arthur
Westwood, J.


Duncan, C.
Potts, John S.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Whiteley, W.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Riley, Ben
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Grundy, T. W.
Ritson, J.
Williams, T. (York. Don Valley)


Hall, F. (York, W. R. Normanton)
Saklatvala, Shapurji
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Scurr, John
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Windsor, Walter


Hayday, Arthur
Sitch, Charles H.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hayes, John Henry
Smillie, Robert



Hirst, G. H.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. A.


Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Snell, Harry
Barnes.

Question accordingly put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 153; Noes, 69.

Division No. 248.]
AYES.
[10.40 p.m.


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Bad.)
Rentoul, G. S.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Hanbury, C.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Ashmead-Bartlett, E.
Haslam, Henry C.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Astor, Viscountess
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Herberts, (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.


Balniel, Lord
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Barclay-Harvey C. M.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Rye, F. G.


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Holt, Captain H. P.
Salmon, Major I.


Bethell, A.
Homan, C. W. J.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Blundell, F. N.
Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.)
Sandon, Lord


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Savery, S. S.


Brass, Captain W.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)


Brigg's J Harold
Jacob, A. E.
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl.(Renfrew, W.)


Brittain, Sir Harry
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Londer, J. de V.
Shepperson, E. W.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Lynn, Sir R. J.
Sinclair, Col. T.(Queen's Univ., Belfst.)


Burman, J. B.
MacAndrew, Charles Glen
Skelton, A. N.


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Smithers, Waldron


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A.(Birm., W.)
Macintyre, Ian
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Christie, J. A.
McLean, Major A.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Cooper, A. Duff
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Strickland, Sir Gerald


Couper, J. B.
Margesson, Captain D.
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Meyer, Sir Frank
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark Lanark)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Moles, Thomas
Tasker, Major R. Inigo


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Templeton, W. P.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Davidson. J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)


Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)
Nelson, Sir Frank
Tinne, J. A.


Dixey, A. C.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Nuttall, Ellis
Warrender, Sir Victor


Doyle, Sir N. Grattan
Oakley, T.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Edmondson, Major A. J.
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Wells, S. R.


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H


Everard, W. Lindsay
Penny, Frederick George
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Fermoy, Lord
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Finburgh, S.
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Wise, Sir Fredric


Fleming, D. P.
Phillipson, Mabel
Womersley, W. J.


Ford, P. J.
Pielou, D. P.
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Power, Sir John Cecil
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Fraser, Captain Ian
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Ganzoni, Sir John
Preston, William



Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Raine, W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Goff, Sir Park
Ramsden, E.
Captain Douglas Hacking and


Grace, John
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Lord Stanley.


Gunston, Captain D. W.




NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hirst, G. H.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hudson, J. H. Huddersfield
Sitch, Charles H.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Jones. J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Smillie, Robert


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Barr, J.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Kelly, W. T.
Snell, Harry


Broad, F. A.
Kennedy, T.
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Lawson, John James
Sutton, J. E.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Lee, F.
Taylor, R. A.


Crawfurd, H. E.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Day, Colonel Harry
Naylor, T. E.
Varley, Frank B.


Duncan, C.
Paling, W.
Viant, S. P.


Graham. D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Potts, John S.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Grundy, T. W.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Riley, Ben
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Ritson, J.
Welsh, J. C.


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W. Bromwich)
Westwood, J.


Mayday, Arthur
Saklatvala, Shapurji
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Hayes, John Henry
Scurr, John
Whiteley, W.


Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Windsor, Walter
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. A.


Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Barnes.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. ATTLEE: T wish to make one or two observations as to why this Clause should not stand part of the Bill and I do so because I have always been closured before I was allowed to speak. I object to this Clause because it lays down certain statutory conditions which are going to react very harshly on certain categories of persons, particularly a large number in my constituency. I have in my own constituency a large number of people who are unemployed part of the time. They never in any one year reach the 26 weeks, and it is very unlikely that they will benefit under this Bill. I strongly object to this attempt to prevent constituents of mine from getting the widows' and orphans' pensions. These conditions lay down 208 weeks, which is, in our opinion, a great deal too steep. I want as many people as possible to qualify for pensions. It is said very often that marriage is a lottery, and this Bill also seems to be a lottery with the Minister of Health running away with most of the prizes in the shape of benefits under the Bill. This Clause and the two preceding Clauses, so far as I can see, are all endeavours to prevent people getting into this insurance or getting the pensions, as the case may be. I think it should be made as wide as possible.
It is rather difficult to argue the case against this Bill because it is sometimes treated as a pensions scheme in which people are being given something for nothing and that it is therefore proper to lay down all kinds of conditions. On the other hand, whenever we want to extend the benefits we are told that it is an insurance Bill and regulated strictly by the amount paid. I have listened to the Debate as long as I could stand it, and I have heard several replies from the Government side, but I have never managed to catch any justification for this Clause on financial grounds. This Clause will act like a pair of scissors, one part being paragraph (a) and the other paragraph (b). The first paragraph lays it down that 104 weeks must have elapsed and 104 contri-
butions paid. I gather that the contributions are to be paid once a week, and I cannot see, therefore, how it is possible to have 104 contributions unless there has been 104 weeks of insurance. The first qualification is that people who are coming into insurance must have a high average, something like 100 per cent. of contributions. In the second place, there is a series of Regulations in which they have to put in 26 contributions. It is quite clear that the earlier the husband dies the greater the hardship on the widow, and the Bill deprives them of a pension if the husband dies in the first two years. If a family has been unlucky and there has been a great deal of unemployment, it comes down heavily on the widow. Representing, as I do, one of the poorest constituencies in London, I think we should look after the most helpless people, those who cannot possibly get employment, whose nerves have been exhausted by working at an early age, and who have gone into blind alleys of employment. We have along the north and south sides of the Thames masses of people who are in casual employment. These are the people we are deeply concerned about. It is their children who, happily, are looked after by the guardians, and the cost swells the rates in poor districts like Poplar, Stepney and West Ham. It is these families who should come under this Bill, but who will, under these drastic Regulations, be cut out of it altogether.
There is no possible reason why there should be all these elaborate qualifications—a qualification of time and a qualification of pay. I have heard nothing from the financial side and no reason from the social side why this should be the case. Therefore, a vast improvement would be effected if this Clause were cut out of the Bill. The Minister of Health has not had time to consider in detail the considerations put forward from this side of the Committee, but I hope between now and the Report stage he will do so and perhaps make some alterations. If we cannot sweep this Clause away altogether, he might be able to substitute a scale which would act with greater equity than the present scale. There is another point. There
are people who enter insurance late in life, large numbers of small traders, like costers. The coster business is likely to be lees followed in the future than in the past because the great growth of motor-cars has pushed the costers off the roads. Many of these who are now old and who have been exposed to all kinds of weather will have to go into some ensured occupation, and many will probably die before they can make this qualifying period. It is in the interests of people like this that I suggest we should do away with paragraph (a) and paragraph (b). They will hit a large number of the poorest people in the community very hard. The only reason for inserting such provisions as these is that provisions of this kind were inserted in previous insurance Bills. Therefore I am opposed to adding this Clause to the Bill.

Mr. BECKETT: During the Debate on this Clause the Attorney-General was courteous enough to give us the exact meaning of this Clause as it stands, but unfortunately he did not have the time, owing to the action of his colleague, to tell us why it is impossible for the Government to make the terms on which these new benefits are obtained a little less onerous. I want once more to stress the great importance to many of the black areas of the country of making these new benefits obtainable as quickly and as easily as possible in these areas. If that is not done you will swell the rates and give no corresponding return to these localities. You are adding to the burden of these local industries and making it difficult for them to compete in the world's markets without any quid pro quo. I have not been able to work out the figures, but if the Government are not able to give us a period of 26 weeks perhaps they can make it a period of something less than the two years. It would not add very much to the financial burden of the Bill and it would certainly be of incalculable assistance to local authorities who have to deal with these poor people whom these benefits are supposed to assist. If the Government consider that the original proposal was too wide surely it is possible for them on Report stage to give us something, a little nearer what we are asking.

Mr. SPENCER: It is quite logical for those who conceive this scheme as a direct contributory scheme to make some provision against any abuses that might arise. In answer to a question I put, the Attorney-General said that paragraph (b) was designed to protect the scheme against a person who might have 104 contributions and then go out of insurable employment altogether, or, alternatively, pay a week or two for the purpose of keeping himself in touch with the scheme, not having made a legitimate contribution. In so far as it is designed for that end one cannot reasonably complain—if we are to accept the principle of a direct contributory scheme. But the Minister for Health was asked to answer a question about a man who had paid for, say, 25 years and then, four years before the man died, he falls ill. So far as this Clause stands at present, it does appear that the wife of that man will be deprived of benefits. That is a reasonable question. The Attorney-General drew my attention to Clause 29 and said that with regard to certain persons Regulations would be made-Are Regulations going to be made to meet the case I have mentioned.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Some of the questions put appear to me to be eminently reasonable and proper, and I rise at once to answer. The hon. Member supposes a case of a man who has been a contributor for 25 years and then ceases to be a contributor for four years, at the end of which period he dies. He asks whether the widow of that man will be entitled to a pension. The answer is "yes," provided that during these four years he was genuinely seeking work, or had proved incapacity owing to infirmity.

Mr. BECKETT: What would be taken as proof of incapacity to find work?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot answer off-hand. I think the hon. Member may take it that a fair test would be imposed and reasonable evidence would be expected.

Mr. WHEATLEY: The Minister has raised a very important point. The whole thing hinges on what is a reasonable test to be imposed. Clearly the Minister has something on his mind, and I think he ought to let us know what his intentions are.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As the Regulations are not yet drafted, it is impossible for me to state particular phrases to be employed in these Regulations. They will be laid on the Table of the House and the House will have an opportunity of examining them.

Mr. BECKETT: Would the Ministry of Health be asked to get them or would they be got by the Employment Exchange?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think the application would probably be made to the approved society and the society would be asked to obtain the evidence. I cannot help thinking the Member for Gates head (Mr. Beckett) is still under a misapprehension about this Clause. There are many misapprehensions existing, and none are more deep rooted than those in the somewhat protracted observations of the right hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley). He said over and over again that this Clause was based upon "steady employment." It is nothing of the kind. There is no such word in the Clause as "regular" or "steady" employment. These 104 weeks need not be continuous weeks. I think he has been under the impression that the whole 104 contributions have to be paid continuously after the beginning of the operation of the Bill. We are asked to reduce the period because, it is said, it is desirable to speed up the time when these people would come off the poor rate. In the great majority of cases the 104 contributions have already been paid. We have only got to deal with a minority of cases and under these cases it will be a varying number. It may be 10, 20, or 30. The whole case about these contributions has been grossly exaggerated in the speeches of hon. Members opposite. I need only mention this one particular, that in the year 1924, the average number of contributions paid of every one of the 15,000,000 contributors under the National Health Insurance Act was 44 during the year. That was the average number, and, as 104 is the total number to be paid in two years, I think hon. Members will see that there is really no hardship in this comparatively brief waiting period.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I rise to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question, as distinct from making any lengthy speech He has given definite replies to one or two
submissions that have been made, but he still fails to make any real reference to the minority of cases that he now refers to. These are cases where real hardship is likely to step in. There is the case of a person who, through no fault of his own, is compelled to leave an uninsurable occupation to enter an insurable occupation and who, prior to the expiration of 104 weeks, happens to pass away. There will be a definite hardship, and I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he does not think, rather than deprive even a minority of people of what should be a legitimate right, that he would be well advised to consider at least minimising the number of stamps required. The very exceptional industrial situation carries thousands in its train, and, although there may not be tens of thousands of hard cases, I do think there will be many hard cases which could be disposed of if a reduced number of stamps is required before the benefits can be received. I would like the right hon. Gentleman to tell us whether or not he does not think that this minority of cases are well worthy of further consideration.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. I cannot take that view. The hon. Member is supposing two things. First, that you have a number of men who are entering upon insurance for the first time; and, secondly, that these men die before they have succeeded in paying 104 contributions. I suggest that the number of men out of this limited number who die before they have made up their contributions is very small; and when he asks me whether it is a hardship that they should die before they have paid their contributions, my answer is that precisely the same argument will apply if you make the number 26 instead of 104.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: The reply of the Minister of Health will confirm most of us on these benches in our opposition to the Motion that the Clause stand part. He very courteously offered to meet the hon. Member for the Broxtowe Division (Mr. Spencer) with regard to a person who had been insured for a very long period, and then was unable to keep up his contributions owing to various circumstances for the next four years, but I think his reply totally fails to meet the situation. He said that under certain conditions and provided
certain things happen, the widow of a man in these circumstances would be able to get a pension. We are told again and again that this is not a scheme for distributing social benefits, but is an insurance scheme to which the workers are contributing for the benefits they will get afterwards, and my hon. Friend raised a point where contributions to the extent of 8d. a week over 25 years will have been paid—4d. by the worker and 4d. by the employer—and yet it is quite possible, from the reply that has been given, that the whole of these contributions would have been totally lost to the people for whom the worker would imagine that these compulsory insurance contributions were being taken from him. Let me point out to the Minister how entirely different that is in effect to what this House has laid down in other directions in regard to insurance. The Minister's reply was that if the ordinary contributions of the employer and the employed person lapse, benefits would still be paid to the widow provided certain things happened. We have nothing before us to-night as to what proof will be required.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member is assuming either that this person is not incapacitated from work by reason of illness or that he is not genuinely seeking work. If either of these conditions exists, it seems to me he does not deserve it.

Mr. ALEXANDER: I will come to that in a moment, but I want to speak first in regard to the danger of the whole of the contributions in any case being lost, even if the man is shown in the final four years not to be genuinely seeking work or not to be in ill-health. The contributions have been paid. Take industrial insurance. We have an enormous business in this country in industrial insurance. We take 2d., 4d., or 6d. a week from the worker. There have been immense scandals in the past, but in 1923 this House laid it down that if a policy had been in existence for five years — not 25 — and then, from any reason at all, the worker was unable to maintain his contribution, it should be a statutory obligation upon the insurance society or company to provide a free paid up policy, or a surrender value,
to the worker who had contributed his 2d., 4d., or 6d. a week, so that the whole of his contributions will not be lost. Is there not a marked contrast between this scheme of so-called insurance now before the Committee and what this House has laid down in the past with regard to other people in the insurance business, and seeing that some value shall accrue to those who have kept up their contributions for a given period. On the point that the right hon. Gentleman made when he interjected a moment or two ago, let me refer to the absence of the information as to what proof is going to be required as to whether a man is genuinely seeking employment or has been prevented from keeping employment by ill-health. Representing the workers as we do, have we not had sufficient experience in our constituencies to know that this kind of Clause is breeding already and will continue to breed any amount of suspicion in the minds of the workers? In another form of insurance (Unemployment Insurance), people are turned off from benefits for no real cause whatever, and if you are going to leave the benefits which ought to accrue under a scheme like this to be tested ultimately on similar tests, I am perfectly certain that the working-class constituents who sent us to this House will feel that we are absolutely justified in opposing any Motion that this Clause stand part of the Bill. Just one other point. I think the Minister will admit that we are under a great disadvantage in discussing this Clause in not having concrete particulars before us with regard to the Regulations. He said that when the Regulations were made they will be put before the House and plenty of opportunity will be afforded to criticise and discuss them. He knows as well as I do that those Regulations, when they are made, can only be objected to in fact on an Address to His Majesty, which can only be taken after 11 o'clock at night. Here we are with a Bill with all these immense possibilities of wrong, of suspicion, of hardship being forced through the House of Commons in four days without any real information as to the vital regulations which are going to be used in working the Bill and which, when they are laid before the House, can only be discussed on a Motion to His Majesty, which can
only be taken after 11 o'clock at night. It is a most serious position for the House to be in in discussing Bills of this importance. One other thing I would say. It brings us up once more against the fact that this Bill is calculated not only in its general operation but in its particular operation, to omit very large numbers of people who are just the kind of people who ought to come in any State scheme of insurance of this character. I sometimes wonder whether some of the people who discuss a Bill of this kind from the purely academic point of view have any experience of the life of a widow of a victim of industry. Although I think there are many who have been the children of widows, I do not think any Member of the House can speak with a more wide experience of what it means to the working-class home of a widow whose husband is the victim of industry than myself. My father was a victim to industry when I was still an infant in arms. My mother was 28 years of age when she was left with four children without any resources. The whole of my early life was cramped, almost blighted, by the conditions under which we lived—not conditions of real hunger or hardship for myself, because of the enormous devotion and self-sacrifice of my old mother, who I believe to be the best citizen in this State to-day yet living. The impression on my mind of the sufferings of my mother and the handicap with which I have had to fight all my life makes me feel that I have something against this system of Society which I will neither forget nor forgive.

Mr. WALSH: I feel compelled to draw attention to this Clause because I speak of what I know when I say it will have the effect of cutting out the widows of tens of thousands of miners in Lancashire already. Let me show how it works. The latter part of the Clause is really the most important. Speaking of the three years prior to the death of the worker, it points out that the contributions must be on the average not less than 26, calculated in the prescribed manner in respect of each of those three years. Let me draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to what took place in 1921. First, all the adult miners of the Kingdom were out of employment, over a million of them. Every one of those miners had been insured since 1912. They
had all, therefore, complied with the first condition when it speaks of where 208 weeks or more which elapse since the date of the entry of the person into insurance. Every one of them had been insured since 1912 so that four years or more had elapsed in every case. Now the requirement of the Section is that for the three years immediately preceding the death of the worker that workman must have had 26 contributions each year at least for three years. What happened after March, 1921, was that after 31st March until the 1st July in that year they were all out of employment, and then when the pits recommenced tens of thousands in every county practically, but certainly 25,000 in my county alone, were unable to obtain employment for at least 12 months. There are thousands upon thousands of them out now who have never obtained employment since the recommencement of the pits at the 1st July, 1921.
These people have every one of them paid years and years of insurance. They have every one of them qualified for the four years or more, and yet in the three years immediately preceding the death of any one of those people, they would not have paid for the six months in any one of the three years, because, let it be remembered, that if that condition is violated, if it is not maintained, one year out of the three, the average is broken down. Let me carry the calculation further. My right hon. Friend says that, having regard to all the millions of the people in insurance the average is 44 weeks. Well the average in the case of the miners before 31st March, 1921, would have been 52 weeks in 1920, 52 in 1919, but only 13 weeks in 1921. That will give an average, if you are going on the average of twice 52 and 13, practically of 39 weeks. But then they play right away from 31st March and many of them are playing right on till now and yet they have paid from 1912 to 1921—they have paid ten years. They have paid nothing since in many cases. There are thousands of them out now. If anyone of those were to die, although the reserve value they have created has been very great, not a single one of their widows would come into benefit under this Bill. If I am wrong in that, it is through the imperfect wording in the latter part of the Clause.
It says: "For the three contribution years …"

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Calculated in the prescribed manner.

Mr. WALSH: But we must have regard to the words that go before that—
Immediately prior to his death … represents on the average not less than twenty-six contributions calculated in the prescribed manner in respect of each of those three years.
The average must be 26 contributions in respect of each of those three years. If that be the case, whatever must be the prescribed manner of your calculation, if it is to be in respect of each of those three years, then you will deprive thousands of widows in Lancashire. If one could say that the framing and wording of the Regulations were such as to do away with the inevitable fear, one can only construe the drafting of these Clauses in accordance with the ordinary usage of the English language.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think this is a mistake. It is on the average, and if in the three years there are 78 contributions made, that is at the rate of 26 contributions made in each of three years.

Mr. WALSH: That is what I desired to educe from the hon. Gentleman. I accept the explanation with the greatest satisfaction and pleasure, but I am quite sure that a legal mind could define this entirely differently from the answer given. However, I cannot have an answer more explicit nor more satisfactory, and, therefore, I accept it with the greatest pleasure.

Mr. TAYLOR: I rise, not to prolong the discussion but in order to get a clearer and fuller explanation from the Minister than that which bears the satisfaction of my right hon. Friend the ex-Minister of War. This Clause, as I see it, in the light of the Minister's explanation—and I hope he will correct me if I am wrong—provides that in those cases where an insured man has been employed for four years and cannot establish an average for three years prior to death of 26 payments, his widow has no claim on the fund. Is that correct?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is where the "contributions calculated in the prescribed manner" come in. In
that case, if the man has not been able himself to make the contributions then, provided that he has been handicapped by illness or genuinely seeking work, it will be counted as though he had paid the contributions he practically had not.

Mr. TAYLOR: That is exactly what I desired to stress. In the constituency which I represent this will affect hundreds of families. During the trade depression of the last four or five years large numbers—hundreds I might say— of skilled artisans, particularly aged men between the ages of 45 and 55, who have been under national health insurance ever since its inception, have as a result of prolonged unemployment and the practical impossibility of getting back into industry at their normal occupation drifted into various channels of earning a livelihood which in normal conditions they would never have gone into. Take, for instance, a thing like hawking, or a thing like poultry farming, or the men who have gone into little businesses and that kind of thing—here are men, skilled artisans, who have spent the whole of their life, when they have been able to get work, in an insured occupation, but who as a result of trade depression have for the time being passed out of that occupation and gone into other channels. I take it that the widows of those men will not be eligible for benefit. I think we may reasonably assume that if a man has been unemployed for four years, or even five years, and if he is a man over 50 years of age, there is very little chance of him regaining his place as an artisan in industry. Whilst he may have been genuinely seeking work all the time, he may have the utmost difficulty in establishing that before the Employment Exchange authorities; therefore, under this Clause as modified, it seems to me large numbers of people who are going to be deprived of benefit, and particularly the widows of men who most need help.
5.0 A.M.
There is another point in this Clause to which I hope the Minister will give consideration. I hope he will see his way clear to reduce the qualifying period below 104 contributions. Take an example, which is not infrequent, of the young men who were taken into the Army at the age of 18 in the latter years of the
War from, an insured occupation, many of them engineering apprentices and so on. Those men who were taken at 18, it is perfectly true, were kept in insurance during the time they were in the Army, but many of them were only in the Army for a period of six months. They were discharged and perhaps got back to an insured occupation for five or six months. Then the slump came and these young men who were taken at a young age have now reached the age of 23 or 24. They will not be able to establish a claim if you are going to insist upon this necessity of 104 contributions. Here again many of these ex-service men—young ex-service men—have had to go to other channels than that of normal trade. Many of them have not been able to complete their apprenticeship, but their families will be equally in need, and I hope from that point of view the Minister will give some consideration to this point. Another point you will find in other industrial centres is this: There are large numbers of young men from 19 to 21 years of age who have never been able to get into industry at all during the last four or five years. [An HON. MEMBER: "Are they in your party?"] I beg your pardon. I hope some serious consideration will be given to this length of the qualifying period and I hope we are going to get some more definite satisfaction from the Minister with regard to the position of these men who have been out of work for a long period. I happen to know a good many of these men who have never been out of work before in their lives, but who find it impossible to establish a claim before a Labour Exchange, Committee, and I do appeal to the Minister to give us a definite assurance that in the case of men—of middle-aged men particularly—who have been in insurance ever since its inception, and who have always had their contributions credited to them until the years of exceptional trade depression—I do hope that these cases will be met and not left to the interpretation of the Regulations when drawn up.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: My difficulty arises in regard to a class precisely similar, though not for the same reasons, as that referred to by the previous speaker. In my division I have a number
of miners, and there are a large number of them who were out of work in 1921. Most of them returned to employment in 1921, but in one particular portion of my constituency, after having returned to work for a period, industrial depression set in and the older pits in the area were closed down. The consequence was that in one or two corners of the constituency there is absolutely no opportunity for some of these poor miners to return to work for some considerable time to come. It is a fact that in that area miners have been out of work for over two years. If under this Clause it is understood that out of three years immediately preceding the death of the man an average of 26 weeks must be provided, then I cannot understand low any of the dependants of those miners can possibly qualify for benefit under this Clause if the interpretation given by the right hon. Gentleman is the right one, namely, that the man has been in employment for an average of 26 weeks for three years. It means this, that he must have been in employment for 18 months. Whatever your Regulations may be and whatever your prescribed manner may be, I cannot see how you can get your average of 26 weeks for each of the three successive years immediately preceding the death. I cannot see how the answer of the right hon. Gentleman covers the point.

Mr. J. BAKER: I only want to ask what is the position of a man under this qualifying Clause who has been turned down by an Employment Exchange or unemployment committee as no longer employable in an insurable industry because he is 60 years of age, and what is the position of a man whose wages were raised to a point during the war period that brought him over the limit and ruled him out of insurance, but whose wages are now reduced to below the limit to come into insurance.

Mr. SAKLATVALA: It is quite a known fact in the textile, engineering and mining trades that men who have long experience in particular trades in this country are sent abroad for periods of three years, two years or four years to commence operations, say, in the mines of India, or Africa, or in the cotton mills here and there. What will be the position of these men if they go abroad for a period
of three years after paying contributions in this country for 10 or 20 years?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot undertake to answer all the conundrums that any hon. Member can think of. As long as I make the meaning of the Clause clear then hon. Members can answer the questions for themselves. The point I was answering when I was speaking to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. Walsh) was the actual number of contributions required in a particular year or in three years. But now an hon. Member says that in this particular case these men could not make the necessary number of contributions in those three years, because they were not able to get work for a sufficient period to enable them to do so, and the reason why was because the pits had closed down upon which their employment depended. They come under exactly the same conditions which we intend to prescribe in the Regulations. That is the point I endeavoured to make to the hon. Member for Lincoln of people genuinely seeking work. In that case it will be accounted to them as though they had paid contributions, even though in fact they had not done so.

Mr. PALING: I think the Minister has done his best to explain the points. In spite of that, there are still things with which we are not entirely satisfied. I should like to press for more elucidation. In regard to the case of the man who has been ill for four years, the Minister of Health answers that satisfactorily. Of course, if he died his widow and children would get their benefit. I would like to ask whether that would obtain benefit for any member provided that over the number of years he could have been proved to be a genuine case. There was a second point raised, namely, the position of the man who is just leaving an uninsured trade, I mean the smaller craftsman and the small shopman. It is not so small a matter as the Minister of Health anticipates it will be. The small craftsmen and shopmen are being driven out of the trades they have been in for years past, and they are going into wage work. It means that there will be thousands coming into the insurable trades every year, and some of these, although the number may be relatively small compared with the number of insured people, are
sure to be handicapped by the present disqualification as the Clause stands. I suggest to the Minister that, although he said that if it was brought down to the 26 weeks there would still be some left out, there would, nevertheless, be less than in the other case, and we want to make the number of hard cases as small as possible. I think he might consider it from that point of view. My last point has been spoken of before, but it ought to be pressed. The Minister of Health has said time after time that a man genuinely seeking work is a man who should be properly treated, but the fact remains that there are in the country at the present time thousands of men who have been out of work two, three or four years and have been reported by the Employment Exchanges as not genuinely seeking work. The Regulations which have been forced on these exchanges have compelled them to report the men as not genuinely seeking work, and because of that report, presumably, all these people are going to be put out. The right hon. Gentleman's Bill will take in most people, and those who are left out will mostly be of the £250 limit. The hardest cases of all are those of the men who have been out of work so long and who have been reported as not being genuinely unemployed, but who, nevertheless, are genuinely seeking for employment and cannot find it and who have thus lost their moral and become poverty-stricken and sold everything belonging to them in order to live. I recommend these cases to the Minister of Health so that he might consider them still further. They are not unemployed in the sense that they would not work under any circumstances. Some of them have proved in the past years that they could work, and that they had done the best work this country has ever had. They have almost been made into unemployables, but because they have suffered these hardships I do not see why they should be put out of this Bill. I hope that the Minister, if he can see his way clear, will give us something of the nature of which we are asking in this Amendment, and that he will take it into consideration on the Report stage.

Mr. WHITELEY: Before you put this question, I would like to hear from the right hon. Gentleman an answer to one or two of the questions to which he has not replied, and particularly the
question with regard to the people who have been declared by Employment Exchanges not to be seeking work. We have scores of cases of these kind of men who have been regularly insured from 1912, and who during the last three years have been genuinely unemployed. We are anxious to receive an answer to this question, because these people will be cut out of the Bill. We think they are genuine workmen and ought to have the privileges of being included in the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman did not answer further the important point which arose earlier in the Debate with regard to those people who have been in employment, but who, through the depression in trade, have been unable either to secure other kinds of work which will bring them into the three years' average or within paragraph (b) of Clause 5. These people

are entitled to have some consideration, because they are being brought down from small businesses and other occupations. All their savings have gone because they have been unemployed. If they succeed in getting employment they will be cut out because they cannot get within the qualifying conditions. We are entitled to know exactly what the position of these people is. To us Clause 5 is really one of the most important Clauses in the Bill and I think we are entitled to have a full explanation.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 148; Noes, 67.

Division No. 249.]
AYES.
[5.20 a.m.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Hanbury, C.
Rentoul, G. S.


Ashmead-Bartlett, E.
Haslam, Henry C.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Balniel, Lord
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Hogg. Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Bethell, A.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Rye, F. G.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Holt, Captain H. P.
Salmon, Major I.


Blundell, F. N.
Homan, C. W. J.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.)
Sandon, Lord


Brass, Captain W.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Briggs, J. Harold
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Savery, S. S.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Jacob, A. E.
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)


Burman, J. B.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Loder, J. de V.
Shepperson, E. W.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)
Lynn, Sir R. J.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfast)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
MacAndrew, Charles Glen
Skelton, A. N.


Christie, J. A.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Smithers, Waldron


Cooper, A. Duff
Macintyre, Ian
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Cope, Major William
McLean, Major A.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Couper, J. B.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Strickland, Sir Gerald


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.
Margesson, Captain D.
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Meyer, Sir Frank
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Dalkeith, Earl of
Moles, Thomas
Tasker, Major R. Inigo


Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Templeton, W. P.


Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Dixey, A. C.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Tinne, J. A.


Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Nelson, Sir Frank
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Nuttall, Ellis
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Everard, W. Lindsay
Oakley, T.
Wells, S. R.


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Finburgh, S.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple


Fleming, D. P.
Penny, Frederick George
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Ford, P. J.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Fraser, Captain Ian
Philipson, Mabel
Womersley, W. J.


Ganzoni, Sir John
Pielou, D. P.
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Power, Sir John Cecil
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Goff, Sir Park
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Grace, John
Preston, William



Gunston, Captain D. W.
Raine, W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Ramsden, E.
Mr. F. C. Thomson and Lord


Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Stanley


Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Reid, D. D. (County Down)



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Sutton, J. E.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Kelly, W. T.
Taylor, R. A.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Kennedy, T.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Lawson, John James
Varley, Frank B.


Barnes, A.
Lee, F.
Viant, S. P.


Barr, J.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Naylor, T. E.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Broad, F. A.
Paling, W.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Brown. James (Ayr and Bute)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Potts, John S.
Welsh. J. C.


Day, Colonel Harry
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Westwood, J.


Duncan, C.
Riley, Ben
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Ritson, J.
Whiteley, W.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Grundy, T. W.
Saklatvala, Shapurji
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Scurr, John
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Windsor, Walter


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hayday, Arthur
Sitch, Charles H.



Hirst, G. H.
Smillle, Robert
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.


Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Hayes.


Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Snell, Harry

Question put accordingly, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 148; Noes, 68.

Division No. 250.]
AYES.
[5.27 a.m.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Hanbury, C.
Rentoul, G. S.


Ashmead-Bartlett. E.
Haslam, Henry C.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Balniel, Lord
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Herbert, S.(York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Bethell, A.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Rye, F. G.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Holt, Captain H. P.
Salmon, Major I.


Blundell, F. N.
Homan, C. W. J.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Howard, Capt. Hon. O. (Cumb., N.)
Sandon, Lord


Brass, Captain W.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Briggs, J. Harold
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Savery, S. S.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Jacob, A. E.
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)


Burman, J. B.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Loder, J. de V.
Shepperson, E. W.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)
Lynn, Sir R. J.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfast)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
MacAndrew, Charles Glen
Skelton, A. N.


Christie, J. A.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Smithers, Waldron


Cooper, A. Duff
Macintyre, Ian
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Cope, Major William
McLean, Major A.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Couper, J. B.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Strickland, Sir Gerald


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.
Margesson, Capt. D.
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Meyer, Sir Frank
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Mitchell. S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Dalkeith, Earl of
Moles, Thomas
Tasker, Major R. Inigo


Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon B. M.
Templeton, W. P.


Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Dixey, A. C.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Tinne, J. A.


Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Nelson, Sir Frank
Wallace, Captain, D. E.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Nuttall, Ellis
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Everard, W. Lindsay
Oakley, T.
Wells, S. R.


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Finburgh, S.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple


Fleming, D. P.
Penny, Frederick George
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Ford, P. J.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Fraser, Captain Ian
Philipson, Mabel
Womersley, W. J.


Ganzoni, Sir John
Pielou, D. P.
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Power, Sir John Cecil
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Goff, Sir Park
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton,
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Grace, John
Preston, William



Gunston, Captain D. W.
Raine, W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Ramsden, E.
Mr. F. C. Thomson and Lord


Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Stanley.


Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Reid, D. o. (County Down)



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. w. (Fife, West)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Sutton, J. E.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Kelly, W. T.
Taylor, R. A.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Kennedy, T.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Lawson, John James
Varley, Frank B.


Barnes, A.
Lee, F.
Viant, S. P.


Barr, J.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Walsh. Rt. Hon. Stephen


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Naylor, T. E.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Broad, F. A.
Paling, W.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Potts, John S.
Welsh, J. C.


Day, Colonel Harry
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Westwood, J.


Duncan, C.
Riley, Ben
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Graham, D M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Ritson, J.
Whiteley, W.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Grundy, T. W.
Saklatvala, Shapurji
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Scurr, John
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Windsor, Walter


Hayday, Arthur
Sitch, Charles H.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hirst, G. H.
Smillie, Robert



Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.


Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Snell, Harry
Hayes.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—[Mr. Chamberlain.]

The Committee proceeded to a Division.

Captain Hacking and Major Hennessy were appointed Tellers for the Ayes, but there being no Members willing to act as Tellers for the Noes the Chairman declared that the Ayes had it.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Wednesday evening, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Twenty-one Minutes before Six o'Clock a.m.